


r- 1 




Class___ __„_ 

Book M± 



Copyright N°. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



American Methodism 

Its Divisions and Unification 



By 
Bishop Thomas B. Neely 



American Methodism. Its Division 
and Unification, izmo, cloth . net £1.50 

A study of the divisions which have taken 
place in American Methodism and a consideration 
of unifications that are proposed and which may, 
or may not, be brought about. The book is both 
historical and constructive. Dr. Neely knows 
the history of his church as few men know it, 
and the fruit of this knowledge is here presented. 
He has ransacked the annals of Methodism and 
brought together many historical facts, never be- 
fore issued in book form. An important, au- 
thoritative volume. 



The Minister in the Itinerant 
System. i2mo, cloth . . net £1.00 

" Bishop Neely states the system itself briefly, 
but the burden of the book is a full discussion 
of the bearing of it all on the minister himself. 
We do not know any other book which states 
the whole case with such eminent fairness." 

— The Continent. 



American Methodism 

Its Divisions and Unification 



By 
BISHOP THOMAS B. NEELY, D.D., LL.D. 

Author of 
"The Minister in the Itinerant System" "The Bishops and the 
Supervisional System in the Methodist Episcopal Church" "The 
Governing Conference in Methodism" "The Evolution of Epis- 
copacy and Organic Methodism" "Young Workers in the 
Church" "The Church Lyceum," "Parliamentary Practice ," 
"The Parliamentarian" "Juan Wesley" "La Predicacion" 
"South America a Mission Field," "South America a Missionary 
Problem" etc. 




New York Chicago Toronto 

Fleming H. Revell Company 

London and Edinburgh 



Copyright, 19 15, by 
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY 






New York: 158 Fifth Avenue 
Chicago: 125 North Wabash Ave. 
Toronto: 25 Richmond Street, W. 
London : 2 1 Paternoster Square 
Edinburgh: 100 Princes Street 



HOV -5 1915 

CU414430 









TK 



Preface 

THE largest ecclesiastical family of the Prot- 
estant type in the United States of America 
is the group of Churches called Methodistic. 

Beginning in colonial days, it has, throughout the 
entire existence of the nation, been in touch with all 
the stages of national development, and, exerting a 
marked influence upon all grades of society, it has had 
a very direct part in molding the national life. While 
it held strategic positions in the cities, it ministered 
also to the rural regions, and its pioneer preachers fol- 
lowed those who sought homes in the wilderness, and, 
by their religious services, they saved the frontier from 
lapsing into barbarism. It was also a unifying force, 
as in the colonial days and in other periods of % the 
country's history, its itinerant ministers, like soldiers 
under orders, moved from one part of the land to an- 
other binding the people of the different sections to- 
gether by a common spiritual bond. 

So great has been the influence of Methodism upon 
the people generally that no one can thoroughly under- 
stand the history of the United States who is not fairly 
familiar with the movements of Methodism from its 
beginning in this land. As Wesley had much to do in 
making a new England, across the sea, so his followers 
on this side the Atlantic have had much to do with 
the making of the great American Eepublic. 

What is more, State questions were at the same time 

5 



6 PREFACE 

Church questions, and especially when the issue was 
moral or humanitarian. Conditions that affected the 
nation affected the Church, and both Church and 
nation had to grapple with the same forces, and the 
issues common to both Church and State shook both to 
their foundations, and, in a number of instances, vio- 
lently rent the ecclesiastical fabric, and made fissures 
that have never yet been entirely closed. 

In view of this interrelationship between the country 
and the Church, those who wish to comprehend the 
history of the nation should know something of the 
history of American Methodism, as those of this eccle- 
siastical family who would intelligently know the his- 
tory of their Church must know the history of their 
country. 

At one time the only Methodism in the United States 
of America was the Methodist Episcopal Church, but, 
through various causes, there are to-day at least seven- 
teen Methodistic bodies, large and small, in this country, 
and nearly all of them have sprung from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, which continues to exist with a 
phenomenal growth, and which still is by far the 
largest of them all. 

The history of American Methodism, therefore, in- 
cludes the history of the divisions and subdivisions 
coming down from the original body, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 

This book is a presentation of such history covering 
about a century and a quarter and touching some 
twenty Methodistic denominations. 

As in other human relations, so in ecclesiasticisms, 
there is the law of action and reaction. From a unity 
there is a tendency to disunity and division, while on 



PEEFACE 7 

the other hand there is likely to come a period when 
the divided parts will be attracted to each other and tend 
to gravitate to one another or towards the main body. 
In other words, while there was once a disruptive 
force, there may come into action a force that will 
bring the disrupted parts together. 

So a study of the causes that produced division and 
diversity will aid in a consideration of tendencies 
towards unification. 

This work is a study of divisions that have taken 
place and a consideration of unifications that are pro- 
posed and that may or may not be brought about. The 
book contains history which is interesting in itself, but 
which has an additional interest because it proposes to 
present enough of the history of the divisions as to aid 
in an intelligent consideration of suggestions looking 
towards forms of unification. 

Thomas B. Neely. 

Philadelphia, Pa., Aug, i, 1915. 



Contents 

I. Early Movements in American Meth- 

odism 13 

II. Early Withdrawals from the Parent 

Body 15 

III. A Foreign Separation . . . .18 

IV. A Withdrawal on Questions of Polity 30 

V. Slavery a Disturbing and Divisive In- 

fluence . . . . . -35 

VI. A Northern Withdrawal . . 5 1 

VII. The Southern Withdrawal ... 60 

VIII. The First Delegate from the Church 

South 71 

IX. Events Following the Formation of 

the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South %y 

X. Renewed Activity by the Methodist 

Episcopal Church in the Far South 94 

XL Its Right to Perform Religious Work 

in the Farther South ... 99 

XII. Results of the Work of the Meth- 

odist Episcopal Church in the South 127 

XIII. Has the Methodist Episcopal Church 

any Present Duty in the South ? . 1 37 

XIV Methodist Episcopal Efforts Towards 

Union with the Church South . 144 

9 



10 



CONTENTS 



XV. 

XVI. 
XVII. 



XVIII. 

XIX. 

XX. 

XXI. 



XXII. 
XXIII. 

XXIV. 

XXV. 

XXVI. 

XXVII. 

XXVIII. 

XXIX. 



Proposed Union Between the Church 
South and the Methodist Protestant 
Church 152 

Methodist 



The Formation 
Church 



of THE 



The Methodist Episcopal Church Re- 
news Proffers of Union with the 
Church South and Makes Advances 
Towards Other Bodies . 

A New Colored Church . 

Consolidation in Canada . 

Union of the Methodist and the 
Methodist Protestant Churches . 

Fraternal Advances Between the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South 

The Cape May Commission . 

Fraternity in Pan-Methodistic Con- 
ferences 

Books on the Question of Union Be- 
tween the Church South and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church . 

Fraternal Addresses on Union 

Attempts at Federation Between 
the Methodist Episcopal Church 
and the Church South . 

Federation in Practice 

A Plan for Union .... 

and Unification in 



Independence 
Japan 



161 



165 
179 

183 
187 



199 
219 

236 

253 
267 

287 

304 
309 

3ii 



CONTENTS 



11 



XXX. The Federal Council of the Meth- 

odist Episcopal Church and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South 321 

XXXI. Pending Suggestions of Union . : 328 

XXXII. Proposed Union of Colored Meth- 

odists 335 

XXXIII. German- American Methodism . . 357 

XXXIV. Is Union of the Denominations De- 

sirable? 378 

XXXV. The Difficulties .... 385 

XXXVI. The Duty of the Churches . .391 

XXXVII. Statistics of Methodistic Bodies in 

1914 394 

Index 397 



EAELY MOVEMENTS IN AMEKICAN 
METHODISM 

THE theme compels a glance at the past, the 
present, and then into the future of American 
Methodism. It implies that there have been 
divisions in what was once a unity, and unity, division, 
and proposed reunion start many queries. 

Thus a consideration of the union of the Methodisms 
raises the question as to how there happened to be any 
division, how long the disunion has lasted, and what 
effort, if any, has been made to bring the divided parts 
together, or into harmonious relations. 

Again, if efforts have been made in the interest of 
union, who made them, how have the proposals been 
received, and what has resulted from them ? 

Predetermined limits, however, will prevent any 
extended presentation of all these points, important 
though they are, but at least an outline suggestion 
should be given. 

Wesleyanism, or the Methodism inaugurated by 
Wesley, began in England, in the first half of the 
eighteenth century. From its germinal form there 
was a gradual, though rather rapid development, and 
in that early British development may be found the 
principles of polity afterwards brought to greater per- 
fection in other parts of the world. 

Wesleyan Methodism came to the English colonies 
along the Atlantic coast of North America about half- 

13 



14 AMERICAN METHODISM 

way between 1760 and 1770. The generally accepted 
date of its formal beginning in America has been the 
year 1766, though some claim that the date should be 
earlier. 

The organization at once took deep root and spread 
throughout the colonies having its government centered 
in England and in the Reverend John Wesley, its 
founder. After the independence of these colonies and 
the formation of the new Republic called the United 
States of America, certain changes in the organization 
were necessitated by the changed conditions in the 
country, and Wesleyan Methodism in the United States 
was reorganized and more fully developed. 

Thus from the Wesleyan Societies in the United 
States there was evolved an Episcopal Church, but, to 
show its character and its historic relation, the quali- 
fying word Methodist was prefixed to Episcopal, mak- 
ing the title Methodist Episcopal. 

The organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
took place in the month of December, in the year 1784, 
in the city of Baltimore, Maryland, at what was called 
the Christmas Conference, because of the season when 
it convened, and it became the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America, or the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in America, both geographical 
and national qualifications meaning the same thing 
then and subsequently, for America as then understood 
did not mean North America, Central America, or 
South America, but the portion of the continent known 
as the United States of America, whose inhabitants 
then were, and now are, known as Americans. 

This Methodist Episcopal Church was then the only 
Methodist body in the United States. 



II 

EAELY WITHDRAWALS FEOM THE PARENT 
BODY 

WITHDRAWALS from the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church of bodies more or less large be- 
gan at an early date. 

The earliest was towards the close of the year 1791. 
The leader in this movement was the Reverend William 
Hammit. Born in Ireland, he had been a member of 
the English Wesleyan Conference. Later he was a 
preacher in the West Indies whence he came to the 
United States and connected himself with the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, which, then, was in its formative 
years. He preached in Charleston, South Carolina, 
New York, and Baltimore, and returned to Charleston 
where he had begun his work. Here he, and his im- 
mediate followers in and around Charleston, dissociated 
themselves from the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
started a new body which they called the " Primitive 
Methodists." This action seems to have been based on 
the personal convenience of Mr. Hammit, rather than 
on any ecclesiastical principle or conviction, and the 
new body soon disappeared. 

In 1792, under the Reverend James O'Kelly, one of 
the powerful leaders of his time, occurred the with- 
drawal of a considerable number of preachers and peo- 
ple over a question relative to the method of making 
pastoral appointments. They called themselves u Re- 

15 



16 AMERICAN METHODISM 

publican Methodists" but later changed the title to 
"The Christian Church." They were found chiefly in 
Virginia. Some historians state that this body perished 
soon after its organization, but to this day it persists in 
the locality where it originated, though it never as- 
sumed the proportions of a large denomination. 

In the first quarter of the nineteenth century certain 
bodies of colored people went out from the original 
Church, which was the Methodist Episcopal, and formed 
denominations composed of members of their own race. 

Thus Peter Spencer, a colored man living in Wil- 
mington, in the state of Delaware, having secured or- 
ders in 1813 became the leader of a new body com- 
posed of colored persons who went out from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. Its original chartered 
title was " The African Union Church," but, after the 
Civil War, it was called the Union American Methodist 
Episcopal Church. This colored organization which 
started in Wilmington, Delaware, spread here and 
there and continues until the present time though its 
numbers have never been very great. 

In 1816, Richard Allen, a colored man resident in 
Philadelphia, with his followers, who were people of 
color, and who had been in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, began in that city the African Methodist Epis- 
copal Church which spread far and wide and has grown 
to be a very considerable religious denomination. 

In the city of JSTew York, prior to this period, was a 
colored Church of the Methodist Episcopal New York 
Conference, and the Church was called the Zion Church, 
or the Zion Colored Church. In 1817 these colored 
people connected with this Zion Church left the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church and originated a new colored 



EAELY WITHDRAWALS 17 

denomination which they called the African Methodist 
Episcopal Zion Church, thus preserving the name of 
the original local Church. This also widely spread and 
taking firm root has in the course of years become a 
large body. 

The more formidable departures from the parent 
Church, however, may be said to have begun after the 
end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century and 
to have been completed about the close of the second 
quarter. These will be treated in their order and each 
will present its own peculiarities and have its own par- 
ticular lessons. 

It is to be noted that all the withdrawing bodies of 
the first seventeen years of the nineteenth century, and 
also the withdrawal under James 'Kelly, towards the 
close of the eighteenth century, still continue, and some 
of them with a very vigorous existence after the lapse 
of nearly, and in one case, more than, a hundred years. 



ni 

A FOKEIGN SEPABATION 

THE first separation of great moment in the 
second quarter of the nineteenth century re- 
lated to the British province of Canada to the 
north of the United States of America. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church had in the early 
days extended into Canada as a sort of overflow. Even 
in that time there was some degree of interchange of 
population. In 1778, the Emburys and the Heeks, who 
formed the first church in New York City, founded the 
first American Methodist Society in Canada. In 1790, 
George Neal, a local preacher from Pennsylvania, who 
taught school in Canada, formed another society in that 
country. About the same time William Losee, an itin- 
erant preacher of the United States, visited some friends 
in Upper Canada, and while there preached some 
sermons which made such an impression that the peo- 
ple petitioned the New York Conference for him as 
their regularly appointed minister. This request was 
granted and thus a connection was established between 
an Annual Conference in the United States and the 
work in Canada, the work across the border being con- 
nected with the New York Conference, and, subse- 
quently, with the Genesee Conference in the western 
part of New York State. 

Thus in this unpremeditated way the work of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church extended across the na- 

18 



A FOREIGN SEPARATION 19 

tional boundary. The work steadily and rapidly spread 
and the relations between the parts of the Church on 
both sides the line were most harmonious, but the war 
of 1812-1814 between the United States and Great 
Britain, which involved Canada, naturally produced 
unhappy results. The allegiance of the people of 
Canada to Great Britain strained their allegiance to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America, a country which had been at war with them. 
British laws also came in to increase the difficulties of 
the situation. Hence there grew up a desire for eccle- 
siastical independence. As Dr. Nathan Bangs, in his 
" History of the Methodist Episcopal Church," says : 
" This desire, however, did not arise out of any dissatis- 
faction with the conduct of the brethren in the United 
States towards them, but chiefly from the opposition 
evinced by statesmen in Upper Canada to their being 
subject to the control of a foreign ecclesiastical head, 
over which the civil authorities of Canada could exer- 
cise no jurisdiction ; and as most of the preachers in 
Canada were formerly from the United States, and all 
of them subject to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction in an- 
other nation, it was contended by the Canadian author- 
ities that they had no sufficient guarantee for their 
allegiance to the crown of Great Britain, and to the 
civil regulations of Canada ; and hence the Methodist 
ministers in Canada had suffered civil disabilities, and 
had not been allowed to celebrate the rites of matri- 
mony, not even for their own members." 

One result of this state of affairs was a greatly re- 
duced membership and an increase of difficulties in the 
work. 

In view of these conditions preachers in Canada pe- 



20 AMERICAN METHODISM 

titioned the General Conference of 1824 to set off the 
upper province as an independent Conference, with the 
privilege of electing its own bishop to reside among 
its ministers and members and to superintend its affairs. 
In response, this General Conference, though not agree- 
ing to all that was asked, did erect Upper Canada into 
an Annual Conference, but retained it as before under 
the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
the superintendency of its bishops. 

This, however, did not satisfy the Canadians, and, in 
1828, the Conference of Canada sent a Memorial to the 
General Conference of that year asking that the 
Canada Conference be made an independent Church. 
The Canadian Conference had also in 1824 memorial- 
ized the Annual Conferences in the United States to 
recommend this to the General Conference of 1828. 

The matter came before that body and there fol- 
lowed a discussion as to the right and power of the 
General Conference to grant ecclesiastical independence 
to the Conference in Upper Canada. 

This was opposed by some on constitutional grounds. 
Dr. Nathan Bangs, one of the leaders in the Church at 
that time, says in his History that it was held that the 
General Conference " had no constitutional right to set 
off the brethren in Upper Canada as an independent 
body, because the terms of the compact by which we 
existed as a General Conference made it obligatory on 
us, as a delegated body, to preserve the union entire, 
and not to break up the Church into separate fragments. 
Hence, to grant the prayer of the memorialists, by a 
solemn act of legislation, would be giving sanction to a 
principle, and setting a precedent for future General 
Conferences of a dangerous character — of such a char- 



A FOREIGN SEPARATION 21 

acter as might tend ultimately to the dissolution of the 
ecclesiastical body, which would be, in fact and form, 
contravening the very object for which we were con- 
stituted a delegated conference, this object being a 
preservation, and not a destruction or dissolution of the 
union." 

Unless some other principle qualified the relationship 
of the Canadian Conference this view must have stood 
as final for the General Conference had no right to des- 
troy the Church in whole or in part. 

At this juncture, however, John Emory, one of the 
legal lights of the General Conference, called attention 
to, and introduced a new principle, or rather one that 
had been overlooked. As Doctor Bangs says : " It was 
suggested by a very intelligent member of the General 
Conference, the late Bishop Emory, that the preachers 
who went to Canada from the United States went in 
the first instance as missionaries, and that ever after- 
wards, whenever additional help was needed, Bishop 
Asbury and his successors asked for volunteers, not 
claiming the right to send them, in the same authorita- 
tive manner in which they were sent to the different 
parts of the United States and territories ; hence it fol- 
lowed that the compact between us and our brethren in 
Canada was altogether of a voluntary character — we 
had offered them our services, and they had accepted 
them — and therefore, as the time had arrived when 
they were no longer willing to receive or accept of our 
labors and superintendence, they had a perfect right to 
request us to withdraw our services, and we the same 
right to withhold them." 

" This," continues Doctor Bangs, " presented the sub- 
ject in a new and very clear light, and it seemed per- 



22 AMERICAN METHODISM 

fectly compatible with our powers as a delegated con- 
ference, and their privileges as a part of the same body, 
thus connected by a voluntary and conditional compact, 
either expressed or implied, to dissolve the connection 
subsisting between us, without any dereliction of duty 
or forfeiture of privilege on either part." 

Convinced that the General Conference had a right 
to grant ecclesiastical independence to its preachers and 
people in Canada, the General Conference proceeded 
formally to grant the desired independence. This it 
did by adopting the following : 

" Whereas, The Canada Annual Conference, situated 
in the province of Upper Canada, under a foreign 
government, have, in their memorial, presented to this 
Conference the difficulties under which they labor in 
consequence of their union with a foreign ecclesiastical 
government, and setting forth their desire to be set 
off as a separate Church establishment ; and, 

" Whereas, This General Conference disclaims all right 
to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction under such circum- 
stances except by mutual agreement ; therefore, 

" Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Confer- 
ences in General Conference assembled : 1. That the 
compact existing between the Canada Annual Confer- 
ence and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States be, and hereby is, dissolved by mutual consent, 
and that they are at liberty to form themselves into a 
separate Church establishment," etc. 

It will be observed that in its action the General 
Conference enunciates the principle that the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church can deal 
differently with territory under a foreign government 
from territory within the United States of America. 



A FOREIGN SEPARATION 23 

This is distinctly implied and expressed in the paper 
which was adopted. 

There is the distinct statement that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in question is not the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in Canada, but the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States, and from it is 
distinguished the Canada Annual Conference, and for 
it to be under the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States was to be under " a foreign ecclesiastical 
government." On the other hand the Conference in 
Canada was " under a foreign government." 

Being " under a foreign government " it was mis- 
sionary, and, perhaps, temporary, work outside of the 
naturally legitimate bounds and jurisdiction of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in, and of, the United 
States of America, and with a different bond from the 
Conferences and fields of action within the United 
States. Because the Conference in Canada was " un- 
der a foreign government," the " Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America" had no 
"right to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction" over it 
" except by mutual agreement," and either side could 
vacate the " compact " or tacit agreement which was, 
as Doctor Bangs says, " a voluntary or conditional com- 
pact," and also temporary. 

Hence, because Canada was "under a foreign gov- 
ernment " and the Canada Annual Conference desired 
" to be set off as a separate Church establishment," the 
Methodist Episcopal General Conference disclaimed 
"all right to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction," de- 
clared the compact " dissolved " and that those in the 
Canadian Conference were " at liberty to form them- 
selves into a separate Church establishment." 



24 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Having disclaimed " all right to exercise ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction under such circumstances except by mutual 
agreement," that is to say, " to exercise ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction over work in territory " under " foreign 
government " or not in a territory within or under the 
United States of America, the General Conference ac- 
knowledged and established the principle that the 
status of work under the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in a foreign country or within the sphere of a foreign 
government is different from its work in its home land 
which is the United States of America. The Church 
is the "Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America " though it may have mission fields 
in foreign countries. It is in, and of, the United States 
but it does not have the same grip and control in terri- 
tory under a foreign political government as it does in 
the United States. In the foreign territory it may 
have its more or less temporary control by tolerance, 
or, using the language of the action in relation to 
Canada, " by mutual agreement," and, as in the case of 
Canada, the relation may be severed " by mutual agree- 
ment " or by one side or the other. So a Conference 
in a foreign land might " be set off as a separate Church 
establishment " or form itself " into a separate Church 
establishment." In the United States of America, 
however, the case would be very different. Here the 
" Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America " could and must enforce its authority over its 
own work. This territory cannot be withdrawn from 
it and its General Conference cannot set off territory 
in the United States, for the General Conference can- 
not destroy the Church in whole or in part. 

So Dr. Nathan Bangs observes in his History, 



A FOREIGN SEPARATION 25 

copyrighted in 1840 : " It will be perceived, therefore, 
that this mutual agreement to dissolve the connection 
heretofore subsisting between the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States and the Canada Confer- 
ence cannot, with justice, be pleaded for setting off any 
one Conference or any number of Annual Conferences 
in the United States, as their relations to each other and 
to the General Conference are quite dissimilar to that 
which bound the Canada Conference to us. The Con- 
ferences in the United States are all bound together 
by one sacred compact, and the severing any one from 
the main body would partake of the same suicidal char- 
acter as to sever a sound limb from the- body. The 
General Conference has no right, no authority, thus ' to 
scatter, tear, and slay ' the body which they are sol- 
emnly bound to keep together, to nourish, to protect, 
and to preserve in one harmonious whole. 

" If an Annual Conference declare itself independent, 
out of the pale of the Methodist Episcopal Church, it 
is its own act exclusively, and therefore the responsi- 
bility rests upon itself alone, for which the General 
Conference cannot be held accountable, because it was 
not a participant in the separation. I do not say that the 
General Conference may not disown an Annual Con- 
ference, should it become corrupt in doctrine, in moral 
discipline, or in religious practice. Should, for in- 
stance, an Annual Conference, by an act of the major- 
ity of its members, abjure any of our essential doctrines, 
such as the atonement of Christ, or justification by 
faith, or should renounce the sacrament of baptism or 
the Lord's supper, or strike from its moral code any of 
the precepts of morality recognized in our general rules, 
it might become the duty of the General Conference to 



26 AMERICAN METHODISM 

interpose its high authority, and cut off or at least to 
withdraw its fellowship from the offending members. 
Yet such an act of excision, or of disnaturalization, if I 
may so call it, could be justified only as a dernier re- 
sort, when all other means had failed to reclaim the 
delinquents from their wanderings — just as the sur- 
geon's knife is to be withheld until mortification en- 
dangers the life of the patient, when death or amputa- 
tion becomes the sole alternative. How else can the 
Church be preserved — supposing such a case of delin- 
quency to exist — from a general putrefaction ? For if 
a majority of an Annual Conference become heterodox 
in doctrine, or morally corrupt in practice, the minority 
cannot control them, cannot call them to an account, 
condemn, and expel them. And in this case, must the 
majority of the Annual Conferences, and perhaps also a 
respectable minority of that very Annual Conference, 
be compelled to hold these apostates from the truth and 
righteousness in the bosom of their fellowship, to treat 
them in all respects as brethren beloved, and publicly 
to recognize them as such in their public and author- 
ized documents ? This would be a hard case indeed ! 
an alternative to which no ecclesiastical body should 
be compelled to submit. 

" These remarks are made to prevent any misconcep- 
tion respecting the principle on which the above con- 
nection was dissolved, and to show that it forms no 
precedent for a dissolution of the connection now sub- 
sisting between the Annual and General Conferences in 
the United States. Analogical arguments, to be con- 
clusive, must be drawn from analogous facts or circum- 
stances, and not from contrast, or opposing facts or 
circumstances. And the relation subsisting between 



A FOREIGN SEPARATION 27 

the Annual Conferences in the United States to each 
other, and between them and the General Conference, 
stands in contrast with the relation which did subsist 
between the Canada and the General Conference ; and 
therefore no analogical argument can be drawn from 
the mutual agreement by which this relation was dis- 
solved in favor of dissolving the connection now sub- 
sisting between the Annual Conferences in the United 
States, by a solemn act of legislation on the part of the 
General Conference, except for the reasons above as- 
signed ; and those reasons, let it be remembered, make 
the contrast still greater between the two acts, and 
justify the difference of the procedure ; for the dissolu- 
tion of the compact between us and the Canada breth- 
ren [was] from the jurisdiction only, Christian fellow- 
ship still subsisting — while the supposed act of excision 
would be a withdrawing of Christian fellowship from 
the offending members." 

The general principles enunciated long years ago by 
Doctor Bangs were, and are, correct, but perhaps they 
should have the qualification of a few additional re- 
marks. This is particularly needed in relation to his 
illustration of the excision or expulsion of an Annual 
Conference by the General Conference. 

An Annual Conference involves not merely members 
but also territory, for it has territorial boundaries. 
The essential principle in the facts and statements 
presented in and illustrated by the granting of inde- 
pendence to the Canada Conference was that the work 
and the territory in a foreign country could be set off 
because it was foreign but that Conference territory in 
the United States of America could not be set off be- 
cause it was not foreign but in the home territory of the 



28 AMERICAN METHODISM 

" Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America." 

Then in dealing with ministers in an Annual Confer- 
ence who would " abjure any of our essential doctrines," 
" or strike from its moral code any of the precepts of 
morality recognized in our general rules," the way to 
deal with " these apostates from truth and righteous- 
ness " would be to deal with them individually, and, 
when they were duly expelled, those who remained 
would be the Annual Conference and be the custodians 
of the property as far as an Annual Conference could 
be the custodian of such property, and if those who 
were expelled or otherwise ceased to be members of the 
Annual Conference, undertook to carry off, or take, or 
hold possession of property deeded and dedicated for 
the use of the Methodist Episcopal Church, it would be 
the right and duty of the Church through its regularly 
constitued denominational authorities, or through the 
individuals who remained true to the doctrines, the 
polity, and the practices, of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, to claim and reclaim said property, if neces- 
sary, by legal proceedings in the courts of the land. 

The individuals might be expelled or excluded, or go 
out voluntarily, but the territory and the property of 
the Annual Conference would remain in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and the Conference, though with re- 
duced numbers, could continue its existence, or a re- 
newed Conference could be created. 

In case the majority of the members of the Confer- 
ence became " apostate " and would not conduct the 
Conference according to the law of the denomination 
and refuse to allow the faithful minority its rights, any 
individual member of the Conference could appeal to 



A FOREIGN SEPARATION 29 

the General Conference, and if all the ministers in the 
Conference had proven " apostate " any minister or 
member of the Church could appeal to the General 
Conference, or the General Conference itself could take 
cognizance, or some one could take the matter directly 
into the civil courts. 

The one great principle established by the Canada 
case is that the status of the work of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in a foreign country is different from 
that in the home land, and, while the General Confer- 
ence may set off, or make independent or allow to be 
independent work in a foreign land, it cannot set off, or 
sever from itself any section, territory, or Conference in 
the United States of America. 

It was on this basis that the General Conference in 
1828 granted the independence of its Conference in 
Canada which was a foreign country. 



IV 
A WITHDEAWAL ON QUESTIONS OF POLITY 

TOWAEDS the end of the first quarter of the 
nineteenth century there developed in some 
sections, with the city of Baltimore as a center, 
a dissatisfaction with certain features of the economy 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church or with the practi- 
cal workings of its polity. 

The Annual Conferences were composed of what 
were called the travelling or itinerant preachers and 
ministers of this class were the members of the Gen- 
eral Conference. The other class of preachers who 
were members of the local churches and were called 
local preachers could not be members of the General 
Conference, and some of them wished their class of 
local preachers to be represented as such in that body. 

Then members of the general laity who were not 
local preachers declared that they were dissatisfied with 
certain conditions in the ecclesiastical government and 
wanted to break down centralization and secure a 
greater diffusion of power among themselves, by hav- 
ing laymen elected as delegates and admitted as mem- 
bers of the General Conference. 

These agitators became known as "reformers." 
They spoke of themselves as such and by others were 
referred to as the reformers. 

After an agitation of some years the agitators grew 
to be a considerable number and counted not only lay 

30 



WITHDRAWAL ON POLITY 31 

supporters but also ministerial participants among whom 
were some very prominent preachers. 

In 1824 a convention of " reformers " was held in 
Baltimore. 

This convention decided to organize what were 
termed Union Societies in different parts of the coun- 
try and also to publish a periodical called "The 
Mutual Rights of the Ministers and Members of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church." 

Persisting in their agitation, charges were made 
against some of the agitators and, in some instances, 
the parties were tried and expelled. Possibly if less of 
this had been done the results would have been better. 

In 1827, the Reverend Dennis B. Dorsey, a member 
of the Baltimore Conference, who had identified him- 
self with the " Reformers," was arraigned before his 
Conference for commending and circulating the publi- 
cation called the "Mutual Rights." Dr. Nathan 
Bangs, in his " History of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church," states that " during the course of his trial he 
avowed such principles, and made such declarations re- 
specting his independent rights as could not be ap- 
proved by the Conference ; and they therefore re- 
quested, as the mildest punishment they could inflict, 
the bishop leave him without an appointment for one 
year. From this decision he took an appeal to the Gen- 
eral Conference ; but instead of waiting patiently until 
this ultimate decision could be had, he loudly censured 
the acts of the Baltimore Conference in reference to his 
case, through the columns of ' Mutual Rights,' thus ap- 
pealing from the constituted authorities of the Church 
to the popular voice, invoking from this very equivocal 
tribunal a decision in his favor. All this had a tendency 



32 AMERICAN METHODISM 

to widen the breach, and to make a reconciliation the 
more hopeless." 

Shortly after that, eleven local preachers of the city 
of Baltimore, as Dr. James Porter, in his " History of 
Methodism," puts it : " who were chief actors in the 
drama, and twenty-five lay members of the more bellig- 
erent kind, were cited to trial, and either expelled or 
suspended," and they took an appeal. 

In 1828, the Reverend Dennis B. Dorsey, who re- 
fused to pledge himself to desist from spreading what 
the Conference regarded as incendiary publications, was 
excluded from the Church. 

In November, 1827, certain expelled* members and 
their sympathizers met in Baltimore, and formed a so- 
ciety called the " Associate Methodist Reformers," 
and, in the same year, a convention of " Reformers " 
prepared a memorial to be presented to the next Gen- 
eral Conference, which was to meet in 1828, praying 
for the admission of laymen, as lay -delegates, into the 
General Conferences of the Church. 

This memorial and various petitions were received by 
the General Conference of 1828. To it also came an 
appeal from Dennis B. Dorsey. In his case the deci- 
sion of the Baltimore Conference was affirmed as was 
also the action of the same Conference in the case of 
William C. Pool, expelling him on similar grounds, but 
a paper was presented by John Emory in which it was 
said: 

" That no act or decision of this General Conference 
is intended, or can justly be so construed, as to deny to 
any minister or member of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church any liberty of speech or of the press which shall 
be consistent with our moral obligations as Christians, 



WITHDRAWAL ON POLITY 33 

and with our own existing rules and associate obliga- 
tions as Methodists and Methodist ministers ; and that 
any representation or construction to the contrary will, 
in our judgment, be a violation of truth and righteous- 
ness." 

The paper also provided that expelled persons be- 
cause of such actions as in the cases cited might be re- 
stored to their former standing, provided that within 
six months the individuals " shall make concessions in 
writing, if required, with regard to their past proceed- 
ings, and give such assurances with regard to their 
future course in relation to the premises as shall be 
satisfactory to such minister or preacher, and also to 
such quarterly meeting Conference." 

In regard to the memorial on the question of lay- 
delegation a report presented by Dr. John Emory, but 
said to have been prepared by Thomas E. Bond, M. D., 
refusing to grant lay-delegation was adopted unani- 
mously by the Conference, and that was followed by 
the almost unanimous adoption of another paper which 
indulged the hope " that a mutual desire may exist for 
conciliation and peace," advised that no further proceed- 
ings be had " on account of any past agency or concern 
in relation to the above-named periodical, or in relation 
to any Union Society as above mentioned," and propos- 
ing a plan for the easy restoration of any who had been 
expelled for specified participation in a certain form of 
agitation. 

But these concessions were unavailing. It was too 
late. The tide had arisen and swept on. 

After an agitation continued through a number of 
years, with an intense discussion on the issue of lay- 
delegation in the General Conference and also in vol v- 



34 AMERICAN METHODISM 

ing the question of the episcopacy, a number of minis- 
terial and lay agitators and their followers left the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and in November, 1830, a 
General Convention assembled in Baltimore to frame a 
Constitution and a Book of Discipline for a new de- 
nomination and this new denomination they styled the 
Methodist Protestant Church. 

This new denomination was to have lay as well as 
ministerial delegates in its General Conference. 

In addition the name bishop was dropped and the 
chief executive officer called the President. 

The first General Conference of the Methodist Prot- 
estant Church convened in Georgetown, District of 
Columbia, on the 6th of May, 1834. 

It was proposed that its General Conference meet 
once in seven years, but it was finally decided to have 
it meet at intervals of four years, following the example 
of the Mother Church with its quadrennial General 
Conferences. 



SLAVEEY A DISTUKBING AND DIVISIVE 
INFLUENCE 

IN the nation slavery became an issue between cer- 
tain sections at a period close to the beginning of 
the new republic. 

Eliminated at an early day from the Northern States, 
it gradually and steadily strengthened in the Southern 
States as slave labor became more profitable. 

The climate and the crops were favorable to the 
labor of the colored people and, therefore, though some 
leaders in the South wished the emancipation of the 
human beings who were held in servitude, the need of 
labor, and the commercial gain through that labor, 
strengthened the demand for human slavery in that 
section of the country. 

The general opinion in the North was against this 
" peculiar institution," as it was termed, and, as the 
years passed, the Northern opinion became as pro- 
nounced against the institution as in the South it was 
favorable, though the people had different views as to 
the method of dealing with it. 

With very many, and a vast number that continued 
to grow, it was not a matter of superficial prejudice but 
a profound conviction which became a matter of con- 
science that took possession of men's thoughts and 
swayed their souls and impelled them to speak, and 
write, and work against the slavery of human beings 
no matter what might be the color of their skin. 

35 



36 AMERICAN METHODISM 

On the other hand many in the South defended this 
slavery not only because it was financially profitable 
but also on other grounds. Some held that it was 
better for the colored people and even maintained that 
the institution had divine sanction. So the controlling 
people in the South, generally speaking, supported 
slavery and made efforts for its extension. 

These counter sentiments asserted themselves in an 
increasing intensity, the one in the North and the other 
in the South, so that one became the practical exponent 
of the North and the other of the South, to such an ex- 
tent that the tendency was to array the two sections 
against each other. 

With this condition it was inevitable that the slavery 
question would become a political issue and slavery 
would mark a dividing line, so that it made two 
diametrically opposed divisions in the nation, the one 
pro-slave, the other anti-slave. 

That is what resulted, so that, generally, and prac- 
tically, speaking, there were the Antislavery North, 
and the Proslavery South, and the North became the 
synonym of the Antislavery sentiment, and the South 
an equivalent word for the Proslavery view. Thus 
there were sectional divisions on this subject that 
made an actual, though not a legal division, within the 
nation. 

In the territory on the southern edge of the North, 
and the northern edge of the South, there was a fringe 
of territory commonly called the " Border," where there 
were mixed sentiments on the question of slavery, per- 
haps more mixed and more pronounced than in most 
other parts of the country. 

The slave controversy, however, was more than a 



SLAVERY A DIVISIVE INFLUENCE 37 

political question which tended to divide the citizens 
into political parties, for the disturbing and divisive 
influence of slavery entered into the Churches and 
tended to divide the religious denominations. 

It was maintained that slavery was a moral and re- 
ligious question and a growing number emphatically 
declared that the Church should stand not for but 
against slavery, and that Christians should not hold or 
favor the holding of human beings in such servitude. 

So the question of human slavery developed discus- 
sions and differences which increased in intensity in 
the Church as well as in the nation. Clashes between 
those of opposite opinions became more and more fre- 
quent in the regularly recurring sessions of the superior 
legislative and executive bodies of the several religious 
denominations until there were open divisions in senti- 
ment, and divisions in the ecclesiastical relations of the 
opposing parties became inevitable. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church practically began 
with the birth of the United States of America and 
spread over the colonies and expanded with the growth 
of the nation until it covered the entire country. 

Slavery was in the land before the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church was founded, and, so, as the Church con- 
tinued and spread, it was susceptible in a degree to the 
force of the diverse and changing sentiments of the 
country on the slave issue. 

The controversy was in the North, which was be- 
coming more and more intense in its opposition to 
slavery, and it was in the South, which was becoming 
more and more proslave, while it covered the middle 
section, where the two forces met in mental, political, 
and, sometimes, physical conflict. 



38 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Hence the conmiotion was felt throughout the whole 
country and through the march of the generations, and 
naturally the Church felt the force of the struggle of 
antagonistic sentiments in the movement which has 
been styled the " irrepressible conflict." 

From its very beginning the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was pronounced in its opposition to human 
slavery and the barter in human beings, which the 
founder of Methodism had denounced as " That ex- 
ecrable sum of all villainies, commonly called the Slave 
Trade," and its law always declared its opposition in 
terms of emphatic denunciation. 

To show the attitude of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church from the earliest times a few of its laws may 
be cited. Thus in the eighties of the eighteenth 
century one of its General Rules prohibited " The 
buying or selling the bodies and souls of men, women 
or children, with an intention to enslave them." About 
the same time the law declared " that slavery is con- 
trary to the laws of God, man, and nature and hurtful 
to society." It declared that, after warning, those who 
bought and sold slaves should be expelled. In 1784 
local preachers who held and would not emancipate 
their slaves were to be tried another year in Virginia, 
but suspended at once in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsyl- 
vania, and New Jersey, and Travelling Preachers who 
possessed slaves and refused to manumit them where 
the law permitted were to be employed no more. In 
the same year the Conference pronounced against 
slavery "as contrary to the golden law of God, on 
which hang all the law and the prophets, and the un- 
alienable rights of mankind, as well as every prin- 
ciple of the Revolution, to hold in the deepest de- 



SLAVERY A DIVISIVE INFLUENCE 39 

basement, in a more abject slavery than is perhaps 
found in any part of the world except America, so 
many souls that are all capable of the image of 
God," and devised measures " to extirpate this abomina- 
tion " from those connected with the Church. 

After a time, however, while not changing its 
antagonism, it made some concessions to its members 
who were supposed to be entangled by peculiar circum- 
stances, but the denomination never yielded its righteous 
detestation of what it regarded an iniquitous institution 
even where it was protected by state law. 

While for a time conservative in its actions the de- 
mand that there should be no tolerance of human 
slavery anywhere and under any condition became 
stronger and stronger from the Northern portion of 
the Church, and many were not only on the anti- 
slavery side, but were pronounced abolitionists insisting 
upon the destruction of slavery in some way and that 
without delay. This meant agitation which not only 
affected local Churches and Annual Conferences but 
found its way into General Conference after General 
Conference. 

Thus the question of slavery came up in the General 
Conferences of 1796, of 1800, of 1804, of 1808, of 1816, 
and of 1824. Then the question of lay delegation 
absorbed attention for a while, but in 1836 the question 
of slavery became a leading topic and in the General 
Conference of 1840 it became the topic of chief interest, 
and so it went on until it culminated in 1844. 

The Methodist Protestant Church was mainly in the 
border-land where the slave and antislave sentiments 
met, though its Conferences also spread to the North 
and West and into the remoter South. Organized in 



40 AMERICAN METHODISM 

1830 it was not long before it began to feel the force 
of the antagonistic elements. "Within a few years the 
Methodist Protestant Church found how difficult it 
was to preserve harmony within itself because of the 
growing proslavery and antislavery sentiments in its 
section and among its members, and, as the struggle 
went on, it soon felt the disruptive tendency of the 
warring elements. 

In only its second General Conference, which was 
held in 1838, there was an acrimonious debate on the 
question of human slavery, and there was great excite- 
ment. This General Conference was held in the city of 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 15, 1838. 

Doctor Drinkhouse says : " The Slavery Question 
could not be suppressed at this Conference. Held in 
the West, with a majority of the delegates antislavery 
in sentiment, a deep, underlying conviction in the op- 
posite sections that it would not be left where the 
Church Constitution had put it ; a civil as well as 
moral question that could not be settled by Church 
legislation; and above all the pressure of the aboli- 
tionists, so-called, upon the more conservative anti- 
slavery element of the free states, precipitated action 
of some sort, to satisfy if possible the manifestoes 
against the Southern institution." 

Asa Shinn, one of the members of the Conference, 
said, in the Christian Witness, a Baptist paper, referring 
to an action of this General Conference : " The Com- 
mittee [Brown, Chairman] reported against slavery ; 
and the subject matter of their report was discussed in 
open Conference for two days, in the presence of a 
large number of intelligent spectators. This was all 
clear gain to the cause of truth and righteousness, and 



SLAVERY A DIVISIVE INFLUENCE 41 

was of itself of more value, probably, than any other 
official action of the Conference. We at first desired 
an official testimony of the General Conference against 
slavery. But the resolution leaving the matter, for the 
present, with the Annual Conferences, and with the 
people in their primary assemblies, will, it is thought, 
promote the cause of liberty more than would such 
official testimony at the present time, and in the present 
state of the public mind." He also said : " Every man 
in the nation must take his stand on the side of liberty 
or on the side of slavery. The signs of the times are 
portentous, and will become more so. The day is ap- 
proaching when every man will find that he cannot 
occupy neutral ground before the full power of the 
storm appears. The liberty of the world and the 
happiness of the human race are at stake. At such a 
time and in such a contest indecision would be imbecility, 
and cowardice would be a crime. Almighty God is on 
the side of righteousness and freedom." 

Referring to the day when the compromise which 
sent the question " to the Annual Conferences and the 
primary assemblies of the people for decision," Dr. 
George Brown says : " That night we had a session in 
view of acting on the report of the Committee on the 
Church paper. That report being read, Doctor Arm- 
strong of Tennessee offered a resolution to the effect 
that all matter on the subject of slavery be excluded 
from its columns. Then followed one of the most ex- 
coriating discussions that I ever remember to have 
heard in any deliberative body on the subject of sla- 
very. Judge H of Ohio did battle for the South. 

. . . Shinn then replied to the whole in a speech of 
great power." 



42 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Continuing, Doctor Brown says : " All this time the 
discussion proceeded upon the supposition that the Gen- 
eral Conference had full power over the question at 
issue " until he reminded the Conference that Article 
X. of the Constitution of the Church settled the mat- 
ter. This read : " No rule shall be passed infringing 
on the liberty of speech, or of the press," and Doctor 
Brown said : " The press with us is constitutionally 
free, and this body has no power to make it otherwise." 
Then Doctor Armstrong withdrew his resolution and a 
compromise was adopted, and, as Doctor Brown states : 
" It was now conceded that the freedom of the press 
implied that at least all official documents must be 
published, while communications by individuals should 
come under the editor's discretionary control." 

Doctor Brown further remarks that : " On the fol- 
lowing Monday Thomas H. Stockton was elected ed- 
itor of our free Church paper. In view, therefore, of 
the premises, Brother Stockton went on to Baltimore, 
to enter upon the duties of his office. But on his ar- 
rival he had the mortification to find that on the slave 
question the Book Committee, right in the teeth of the 
Constitution, and over the action of the General Con- 
ference, had gagged our Church paper." 

Doctor Stockton, therefore, declined to fill the chair 
under such circumstances, and the Book Committee 
elected Eli Yeates Reese to be the editor, and, as Doc- 
tor Brown says : " He filled his position with ability, 
but alas for him and for us all, in a free country and in 
a free Church he edited a gagged paper." 

The General Conference of 1842 was well-nigh over- 
whelmed with numerous memorials on the slave ques- 
tion, with resolutions on the same subject from at least 



SLAVERY A DIVISIVE INFLUENCE 43 

eight Annual Conferences. Doctor Drinkhouse says : 
" No one can doubt the serious nature of the question 
as they present it. . . . Scanning these signatures, 
you are impressed with the uncompromising opposition 
of the persons — free from sin themselves, they could 
not and would not suffer sin upon their Southern breth- 
ren. They rebuke it in no measured terms. There 
must be action, immediate action for emancipation ; the 
consequences are not considered to the unfortunate 
holders of slaves forbidden to free them by the civil 
law. And yet but eight or nine of the twenty Confer- 
ences and less than five hundred signers to the thirteen 
or more memorials made this demand." 

This Doctor Drinkhouse wrote years later in view of 
the papers which he examined. He was not a member 
of that General Conference but had access to the 
records. The resolutions and memorials were sent to 
a special committee and from it came majority and 
minority reports which were discussed for several days, 
and all were displaced by a compromise resolution as 
follows : 

"Resolved, That in the judgment of this General 
Conference the holding of slaves is not under all cir- 
cumstances a sin against God ; yet in our opinion, un- 
der some circumstances it is sinful, and in such cases 
should be discouraged by the Methodist Protestant 
Church. The General Conference does not feel author- 
ized by the Constitution to legislate on the subject of 
slavery ; and by a solemn vote we present to the 
Church our judgment, that the different Annual Con- 
ferences, respectively, should make their own regula- 
tions on this subject, so far as authorized by the Con- 
stitution." 



44 AMERICAN METHODISM 

This was adopted by a vote of twenty-three to 
twenty, a majority of only three, most of the affirma- 
tive vote being from the South and most of the nega- 
tive from the North. Then various groups made writ- 
ten protests against the action, and there was one paper 
in its support. The able Alexander McCaine defended 
American Domestic Slavery, basing his arguments on 
the Sacred Scriptures, while Shinn, Stockton and others 
answered McCaine, and as Doctor Drinkhouse observes, 
" much severity of speech being indulged at times on 
both sides, and the reading of the manuscript minutes 
shows into what a sad plight the struggling Church 
was brought by this agitation," and, he remarks, " The 
extremists returned to their homes only to renew the 
contention." 

This compromising action in the Conference, which 
looked like an evasion of the issue, was unsatisfactory 
to many, and the same historian tells us that : " Mean- 
time as the result not a few persons in the North and 
West, dissatisfied with the outcome of the General 
Conference action, withdrew from the Church and 
allied themselves with the Wesleyan Methodists, or 
stood aloof altogether. The strain upon the youth- 
ful organization grew more tense as the months rolled 
on, and antislavery as a political force received ac- 
cretion of numbers and increased momentum, stimu- 
lated by a like condition of things in the old Church, 
now arranging itself in sections on the same ques- 
tion." 

The slavery question came to the front again in the 
General Conference of 1846. A lay-member from 
Michigan proposed the following : " Resolved, That the 
Conference declare slavery, or slaveholding, to be sin- 



SLAVERY A DIVISIVE INFLUENCE 45 

ful in all its relations, and that no Conference shall be 
bound to hold fellowship with any Conference that 
sustains slavery." 

A layman from Pittsburgh offered the following: 
" Resolved, That this Conference regard the efforts of 
Abolitionists, and all other attempts to interfere with 
the slave question, as improper, on the part of a re- 
ligious body, and an unwarrantable disturbance of the 
regulations of the civil government." 

These resolutions embodied the views of both sides. 
It was also known that the South Carolina Conference 
had passed a series of resolutions indorsing slavery and 
commending Alexander McCaine's " Defense of Slavery 
from the Scriptures," which had been published in 
pamphlet form. 

Again a compromise resolution almost identical with 
that adopted by the preceding General Conference was 
presented, as follows : 

" Besolved, That in the judgment of this General 
Conference, the holding of slaves is, under many cir- 
cumstances, a sin against God, and, in such cases, 
should be condemned by the Methodist Protestant 
Church ; nevertheless, it is our opinion that under some 
circumstances it is not sinful. This General Conference 
does not feel itself authorized by the Constitution to 
legislate on the subject of slavery, and by a solemn 
vote we present to the Church our judgment that the 
different Annual Conferences, respectively, should 
make their own regulations on this subject so far as 
authorized by the Constitution." 

This was adopted. Whereupon protests were offered 
but it was voted to permit no more references to the 
subject during the remainder of the session. Thus 



46 AMERICAN METHODISM 

again was the direct issue avoided in the General Con- 
ference by a compromise action. 

It is also stated that the Conference laid on the table 
a resolution that declared that " the practice of buy- 
ing or selling men, women, or children, with the inten- 
tion of enslaving them or of holding them in slavery, 
where emancipation is practicable, is an offense con- 
demned by the word of God." 

In 1847 the Genesee Conference by resolution asked 
the other Conferences to unite with it in a call for a 
convention to legislate upon the subject of slavery and 
to blot slaveholding from the Church. To this the 
Muskingum Conference responded that it did not feel 
implicated in the sin of slavery, though convinced of its 
moral wrong ; that to accede to the request would re- 
sult in a division of the Church ; and that it would not 
further the cause of emancipation. But as Doctor 
Drinkhouse remarks : " As the years passed by and the 
political power of the antislavery party augmented, it 
was found impossible to adhere to such conservative 
ground in the West and North." 

In 1849, the Michigan Conference refused to elect 
representatives to the General Conference which was 
to meet the next year, " thus ridding themselves of 
complicity with slavery," as they interpreted their 
action. 

In the General Conference of 1850 there was a 
memorial asking that " a more definite expression be 
given upon the sinfulness of slavery . . . and that 
the extent of the power of the Annual Conference to 
legislate on the subject be defined." This memorial, 
which came from a circuit in the Pittsburgh Confer- 
ence, was referred to a committee which reported that 



SLAVERY A DIVISIVE INFLUENCE 47 

the General Conference had no jurisdiction ; that it did 
not " think that the General Conference should assume 
the right to expound the Discipline to the Annual Con- 
ferences ; but that each Annual Conference is the judge 
of such matters as are referred to it by the Constitu- 
tion, respectively for themselves, and are only held re- 
sponsible to the General Conference, when, in their 
judgment, they shall have passed ' rules and regula- 
tions ' contravening the Constitution," and this report 
was adopted. 

The General Conference of 1854 passed the fol- 
lowing : 

" First, resolved, in the opinion of this General Con- 
ference, that the holding of men, women, or children in 
a state of involuntary servitude, for the purpose of gain, 
where the civil law will admit of emancipation, and 
where the interest of the slave would be promoted 
thereby, is a violation of the morality of the Christian 
Scriptures. Second, resolved that, according to the 
Constitution of the Methodist Protestant Church, tak- 
ing the word of God for the rule, the local judiciary, 
and not the General Conference, is the proper tribunal 
by which all questions of morality, bearing upon the 
standing of members of the Methodist Protestant 
Church, should be determined." 

All these compromises merely preserved the Gen- 
eral Conferences from a definite decision on the slave 
question and left the matter open for the Annual 
Conferences, and for individuals, to judge and decide 
for themselves, and this act of 1854 was full of loop- 
holes allowing the escape of any who desired to evade 
the issue. 

The effect was simply avoidance and repression, but 



48 AMERICAN METHODISM 

the repression meant an ultimate explosion. As one 
wrote : 

" There grew up a demand for titter separation. 
The brethren in the free states were twitted upon their 
continued official relation to Conferences in the slave 
states ; and in more extreme sections some of the Con- 
ferences seriously decreased in numbers owing to this 
cause. The wisest and most conservative men yielded 
to the infection. . . . And now these brethren took 
up the question of * a peaceful separation ' from the East 
and South. It was illegitimate business, but a number 
of the Conferences having instructed their delegates to 
consider it, an advisory committee of one from each 
Conference was appointed to ' propose suitable action in 
the case.' " 

This committee reported that : " In our opinion, the 
advantages derived from our relation to the General 
Conference, as now constituted, are overbalanced by the 
disadvantages arising from it," and suggested that " as 
we cannot hope for reasonable permanent harmony," 
the question arises as to whether " the peace and inter- 
ests of both the Southern and Northern Conferences 
will not be promoted by a peaceful separation." It 
further recommended the several Annual Conferences 
in the North and West to " clothe their representatives 
with conventional powers, and instruct them to meet in 
the city of Cincinnati, O., on the second Wednesday of 
November, 1857, and then and there determine whether 
they will attend the General Conference, to be held at 
Lynchburg, Ya., in May, 1858, or whether they will 
take measures for the organization of a General Confer- 
ence embracing only Annual Conferences opposed to the 
system of American slavery." 



SLAVERY A DIVISIVE INFLUENCE 49 

Says the historian : 

" The knotty problem with them was : How to 
separate and not secede. The former they must do ; 
the latter they repudiated. It was Scylla or Charyb- 
dis." 

The Convention did meet in Cincinnati on the 11th 
of November, 1857, and adopted a memorial setting 
forth their grievances as antislavery men and demand- 
ing modifications in the Constitution and Book of Dis- 
cipline, and, among other things, that the proviso under- 
stood as insuring civil protection to slave dealers and 
slaveholders be stricken out ; and that a clause be in- 
serted making voluntary slaveholding and slave dealing 
a bar to membership in the Church. The Convention 
also asked that a call be made for a Convention, in 
May, 1859, to make these changes, and added that "if 
this General Conference shall not see good to adopt 
action necessary to remove our difficulties, we cannot 
conscientiously consent to a further continuance of our 
ecclesiastical connection." 

The General Conference of 1858 recommended to 
the Annual Conferences to call a Convention. This 
" General Convention of Delegates from the Northern 
and Western Conferences of the Methodist Protestant 
Church " was called and it met in Springfield, Ohio, 
November 10-16, 1858. 

It was declared that the late General Conference 
was " a legal nullity " and the Convention adopted a 
paper the gist of which is as follows : 

"Therefore, resolved, that indisputable facts, the 
inductions of sound logic, the dictates of Christian 
prudence, and an enlightened sense of our duty to 
God and man, justify and warrant this Convention, in 



50 AMERICAN METHODISM 

the name of the several Annual Conferences herein 
represented, to now declare all official connection, co- 
operation, and official fellowship with and between said 
Conferences, and such Conferences and Churches, 
within the Methodist Protestant Association, as prac- 
tice or tolerate slaveholding and slave-trading, as speci- 
fied in said Memorial, to be suspended until the evil of 
slavery complained of be removed ; and they agree to 
put back the general interests, and work with their 
brethren of the West and North in sustaining them 
under the Constitution." 

This was a conditional suspension of relationship but, 
as Doctor Drinkhouse says: "In the East and South 
these proceedings, taken together, were declared a 
secession from the Methodist Protestant Church. The 
continental character of the denomination was broken, 
and each section went on its way striving, under serious 
disabilities, to overcome the local besetments and ob- 
structions with which they were environed." 

Thus the disturbing and divisive force of American 
slavery is illustrated in the division of the Methodist 
Protestant Church, but thirteen years before this action 
Southern Conferences had withdrawn from the original 
Mother Church. In this case the withdrawal was by 
those who adhered to slavery, while in the Methodist 
Protestant Church the withdrawal was by those op- 
posed to slavery. 

Indeed every great Church with a continental spread 
in the United States, or a jurisdiction throughout the 
nation, was divided by slavery excepting the Roman 
Catholic and the Protestant Episcopal Churches. 



YI 
A NOETHEEN WITHDEAWAL 

IT is simply a chronological fact that a couple of 
years after the formation of the Methodist Prot- 
estant Church the movement for the abolition of 
American slavery began to assume an organized form. 

In 1832 the New England Antislavery Society was 
organized, and the next year was started the American 
Antislavery Society. This was organized in the city 
of Philadelphia, in 1833, and at the organizing con- 
vention were sixty-three abolitionists from eleven states 
of the Union, and among them were William Lloyd 
Garrison and the poet, John Greenleaf Whittier, the 
latter being one of the secretaries. 

This Convention prepared and published a declara- 
tion which recited the wrongs and sufferings of the 
slaves. It declared that "in view of the civil and 
religious privileges of this nation, the guilt of its op- 
pression " was " unequalled by any other on the face of 
the earth," " that every American citizen who retains 
a human being in involuntary bondage is a man- 
stealer ; . . . that the slaves ought to be instantly 
set free ; . . . that all those laws which are now 
in force admitting the right of slavery are, before God, 
utterly null and void." It admitted " the sovereignty 
of each state to legislate exclusively on the subject of 
slavery within its limits," but maintained that the 
United States Congress had " a right to suppress the 

51 



52 AMERICAN METHODISM 

domestic slave-trade between the states, and to abolish 
slavery in the territories," and that it was the duty of 
the people of the free states " to remove slavery by 
moral and political action, as prescribed in the Consti- 
tution of the United States." 

The Antislavery movement was now organized and 
at once gained great momentum. Many rallied to its 
support so that the American Society alone, in the year 
1835, expended thirty thousand dollars or more in its 
propaganda, issued one million publications, employed 
fourteen lecturing agents, and organized over five hun- 
dred auxiliary societies. 

The agitation was decidedly pronounced and the ex- 
citement became more and more intense. The Churches 
participated and while the nation was shaken politically, 
the people of different denominations were moved by 
the moral aspects of the questions involved. 

About the same time that the American Antislavery 
Society was formed, there was organized in New York 
City the first Methodist Episcopal abolition society. 
That was in 1833. At the organization, La Eoy Sun- 
derland presided. Bishop Hedding was elected perma- 
nent president but declined to serve. In 1835 the New 
England Conference organized an antislavery society 
which advocated the immediate and unconditional 
abolition of slavery, and the same year the New 
Hampshire Conference formed a similar society. The 
overwhelming sentiment is indicated in the fact that 
out of the sixteen delegates elected to the General 
Conference by these two Annual Conferences, fourteen 
of them were outspoken abolitionists. 

The General Conference of 1836 was a disappoint- 
ment to the extreme abolitionists in the Church. Indi- 



A NORTHERN WITHDRAWAL 53 

viduals in the body spoke strongly against the agitation, 
one saying that abolitionism was " an unhallowed flame 
that has burned to the destruction of both whites and 
blacks," and one distinguished man from the South, 
John Early, said : " Let the Methodists from Maine to 
Georgia come out and denounce Abolitionists, and it 
will place the Methodist Episcopal Church on an emi- 
nence that it never had before." 

The abolitionists formed a small minority in the Gen- 
eral Conference, but they had a voice, and their leader 
was Orange Scott, of the New England Conference. 
He replied to the other side, and, among other things, 
said : " The Methodist Episcopal Church has an unholy 
alliance with slavery ; she ought not, therefore, give 
herself any peace until she cleanses her skirts from 
blood-guiltiness. Shall the dearest interests of undying 
millions be sacrificed upon the altar of the peace of the 
Church ? . . . The die is cast. The days of the 
captivity of our bondmen are numbered. Their re- 
demption is written in heaven." 

It was a masterly address, for Mr. Scott was both a 
logician and an orator, and, particularly, when he had 
a theme that moved him, and deeply moved he was, 
notwithstanding his marked self-possession. 

John G. Whittier, who was both poet and abolition- 
ist, thus describes him as he appeared on another oc- 
casion : 

" We had listened with intense interest to the thrill- 
ing eloquence of George Thompson, and Henry B. 
Stanton had put forth one of his happiest efforts. A 
crowded assembly had been chained to their seats for 
hours. It was near ten o'clock in the evening. A 
pause ensued ; the audience became unsettled, and many 



54: AMERICAN METHODISM 

were moving towards the door purposing to retire. A 
new speaker arose. He was a plain-looking man, and 
seemed rather to hesitate in the few observations he 
first offered. An increasing disposition to listen evi- 
dently encouraged him, and he became animated and 
lively, eliciting demonstrations of applause. Spurred 
on by this, he continued with increasing interest evident 
on the part of his hearers, who now resigned themselves 
willingly to his powerful appeals, responding at short 
intervals in thunders of applause. To many his illus- 
trations were new and startling. I never can forget 
the masterly manner in which he met the objection 
that abolitionists were blinded by prejudice and work- 
ing in the dark. * Blind though we be,' he remarked, 
' aye, sir, though blind as Samson in the temple of 
Dagon, like him, if we can do no more, we will grope 
our way along, feeling for the pillars of that temple 
which has been consecrated to the bloody rites of the 
Moloch Slavery ; and, grasping at their base, we will 
bend forward, nerved by the omnipotence of truth, and, 
o'erturning the supports on which this system of abom- 
ination rests, upheave the entire fabric, whose undis- 
tinguishable ruins shall yet mark the spot where our 
grandest moral victory was proudly won.' The climax 
was complete ; the applause was unbounded as the 
speaker retired. Upon inquiry, we heard the name of 
O. Scott, now so well known among the ablest advo- 
cates of the slave's cause." 

The General Conference of 1836 refused to disap- 
prove of slavery, passed resolutions condemning abo- 
litionism, and disclaiming " any right, wish, or inten- 
tion to interfere in the civil and political relation be- 
tween master and slave as it exists in the slaveholding 



A NORTHERN WITHDRAWAL 55 

states of this Union," and also disapproving, in the 
most unqualified sense, the conduct of the two members 
of the General Conference who are reported to have 
lectured in this city (Cincinnati) recently, upon and in 
favor of modern abolitionism." 

Some Annual Conferences in the North and West by 
resolutions pronounced against the abolitionist agitation, 
and in some Conferences candidates for the ministry 
were rejected and some members were suspended from 
the ministry because of their abolition activity. 

Nevertheless the antislavery sentiment grew and the 
activity of the abolitionists within the Church greatly 
increased. 

To the General Conference of 1840 were sent memo- 
rials asking for antislavery action. In response to an 
address from the British Wesleyan Conference, the 
General Conference referred to the right of the several 
states to pass diverse laws on the subject of slavery, 
and that it would be wrong for the Church to enact a 
rule in opposition to the constitution and laws of the 
state on this subject, but there was no direct action on 
the slave issue or upon abolitionism. 

Taken altogether the action and non-action of the 
General Conference of 1840 were unsatisfactory to the 
extreme antislavery agitators in the North, and, per- 
haps, almost equally unsatisfactory to the extremists in 
the Southern part of the Church. 

That the conservative action of the General Confer- 
ences and the correspondingly conservative actions of 
certain officials were not encouraging to the extreme 
antislavery element in the North was soon demon- 
strated by manifestations of disaffection that speedily 



56 AMERICAN METHODISM 

showed themselves, and the danger of a schism could 
not be disguised. 

It was true that the General Rules of the Church 
prohibited " The buying and selling of men, women, 
and children, with an intention to enslave them," and 
that the Book of Discipline contained a Section on Sla- 
very beginning with the question : " What shall be done 
for the extirpation of the evil of slavery ? " and that the 
law said : " We declare that we are as much as ever 
convinced of the great evil of slavery : therefore no 
slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in 
our Church hereafter, where the laws of the state in 
which he lives will admit of emancipation, and permit 
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom," and that the law 
also said that " When any travelling preacher becomes 
an owner of a slave or slaves, by any means, he shall 
forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless 
he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of 
such slaves, conformably to the laws of the state in 
which he lives." 

Strong as this was regarded to be under existing con- 
ditions it was not sufficient to satisfy and pacify the 
aroused antislavery element in certain Northern sec- 
tions. The abolitionists wanted something more drastic 
and wanted it without delay. 

Defeated and discouraged quite a number prepared 
to leave the Methodist Episcopal Church. In about a 
year after the General Conference of 1840, or, to be 
more exact, on the 13th of May, 1841, a body under 
the title of Wesleyan Methodists was organized in 
Michigan. It was a small organization but it was the 
beginning of a stream that would increase in volume. 
In two years its reports showed seventeen stationed 



A NORTHERN WITHDRAWAL 57 

preachers, nine circuits, and 1,116 members. Move- 
ments were springing up and streams were forming in 
other localities. Numbers withdrew from the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church. Some went into other denomi- 
nations, while many who withdrew remained for a time 
undecided as to whether they should form a new 
Church, and, as Doctor Matlack observed, " stood wait- 
ing in expectation of a secession of the main body of 
the Abolitionists." 

The Reverend Orange Scott, on account of ill health, 
retired to Newbury, Yermont, but, during the winter of 
1840-41, he wrote occasional articles for the press. 
Doctor Matlack, his biographer, tells us that in some 
of these articles he " deprecated his own past conduct 
of conducting the antislavery controversy." Mr. Scott 
himself declared : " I have no hope that any improve- 
ment will take place in regard to Church government^ 
and that there is no alternative but to submit to things 
pretty much as they are, or secede. I have never yet 
felt prepared for the latter, but my opinion is that 
those who cannot conscientiously submit to Methodist 
economy and usages had better peaceably leave." 

However he was urged to secede, to prepare a plan 
of Church government, and to call a Convention, and 
in 1842 he announced a change of opinion and pur- 
pose, and, with Jotham Horton and La Roy Sunder- 
land, published a withdrawal from the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, and announced a Convention to prepare 
for a new Church organization which would be free 
from slavery and non-episcopal in polity. 

This Convention was held in Utica, New York, on 
the 31st of May, 1843, and at it was formed "The 
Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America." This 



58 AMERICAN METHODISM 

new denomination retained much of the polity of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, such as the General, 
Annual, and Quarterly Conferences, thus maintaining 
the connectional principle. The old general rule was 
modified so as to read : " Buying or selling of men, 
women, or children with the intention to enslave them, 
or holding them as slaves, or claiming that it is right 
so to do," and their eighth Article of Religion read : 
"We are required to acknowledge God as our only 
supreme ruler, and all men are created by Him equal 
in all natural rights. Wherefore, all men are bound 
so to order all their individual and social and political 
acts as to render to God entire and absolute obedience, 
and to secure to all men the enjoyment of every natural 
right, as well as to promote the greatest happiness of 
each in the possession and exercise of such rights." 

The whole number who gave in their adhesion at the 
beginning of this new ecclesiastical organization was 
nearly six thousand, including twenty-two ministers 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, with as many 
more from the " Protestant " and " Reformed Method- 
ists " who were present at the Convention. These, with 
twice as many more who reported by letter, were di- 
vided into six Annual Conferences, and, at the first 
General Conference, which was held eighteen months 
later, there was reported a total membership of fifteen 
thousand. 

Thus there came about a Northern withdrawal from 
the Methodist Episcopal Church when, in 1843, a large 
number of ministers and members, particularly in the 
northeastern section of the country, who felt that the 
Methodist Episcopal General Conference was not suffi- 
ciently pronounced in its antagonism to slaveholding, 



A NORTHERN WITHDRAWAL 59 

and not sufficiently prompt in dealing with slave- 
holders within the Church, withdrew from the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church and formed another Church 
which they called " The Wesleyan Methodist Connec- 
tion of America," which body was based mainly on op- 
position to the enslavement of human beings. 

This departure was supposed to have carried off the 
very pronounced abolition element, composed of those 
who were most radical in their utterances and actions, 
and to have practically removed the divisive issue from 
the ensuing General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, which was to meet the next year, but 
this prognostication proved to be incorrect. 



YII 
THE SOUTHEKN WITHDEAWAL 

A LITTLE before the middle of the last century 
occurred the largest withdrawal. In 1844 the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, which met in the city of New York, 
found that, notwithstanding the withdrawal the pre- 
ceding year of a large number of ministers and lay- 
men of a decidedly antislavery type, who formed the 
Wesleyan Methodist Connection, the antislavery senti- 
ment in the Methodist Episcopal Church had greatly 
gained in strength. 

As a result there had come about throughout the 
Church a great collision in sentiment between the two 
opposing elements on the slavery question, and this 
conflict culminated in the General Conference of 1844. 

As the country was growing and the opposing opin- 
ions were rapidly developing, an immediate conflict be- 
tween the two sides appeared to be inevitable, but the 
particular occasion for the strife and struggle in the 
Church at that moment was the fact that one of the 
bishops of the Church who resided in the South had 
become an owner of slaves, through his marriage with 
a lady who owned slaves and who brought them with 
her to her husband. 

Heretofore no bishop of the Church had in this, or 
any other, way owned slaves, but now, when, in this 
case for the first time, slavery and the episcopate were 

60 



THE SOUTHERN WITHDRAWAL 61 

directly connected, and the fact became known among 
the strong opponents of human slavery in the General 
Conference, there was intense feeling, and an issue was 
created on which the members of the Conference 
sharply divided in their judgment, their deliverances, 
and their decision. 

The General Conference of 1844 considered and dis- 
cussed the matter for a long time, and finally pro- 
nounced against slaveholding by a bishop, and de- 
clared that Bishop James O. Andrew, the bishop in 
question, ought to desist from the exercise of the func- 
tions of his episcopal office until he relieved himself 
from this impediment of slaveholding, which the ma- 
jority held unfitted him for presiding in all the Annual 
Conferences. 

On this point there has been an erroneous impres- 
sion. Indeed there has been an oft-repeated assertion 
that the General Conference deposed Bishop Andrew 
from the episcopate, but, notwithstanding the preva- 
lence and persistence of this, or an equivalent, notion 
the supposition is incorrect and the contrary is the fact. 

The record shows that the General Conference did 
not deprive Bishop Andrew of his episcopate, and it did 
not even suspend him from his office. 

All that the Conference did was to pass what was 
called the Finley substitute, which read as follows : 

" Resolved, That it is the sense of this Conference 
that he desist from the exercise of this office so long as 
this impediment remains," and this was adopted by a 
vote of 110 yeas to 68 nays. 

In the resolution there was not a word about deposi- 
tion or even suspension. It did express the sense, or 
opinion, of the body that he ought to desist from ex- 



62 AMERICAN METHODISM 

ercising his episcopal functions until he ceased to be a 
slaveholder— that he ought, as though the matter was 
left to him and he was to act voluntarily — and the res- 
olution was so phrased, that the moment he freed him- 
self from the impediment by giving up his slavehold- 
ing connection with human slavery, that very moment 
he was free, under the resolution of the General Con- 
ference, and without any objection, to perform all the 
functions of the episcopal office of which he had never 
been deprived. ; 

Not only did the General Conference not depose or 
suspend Bishop Andrew, but it continued to recognize 
him as one of its bishops, directed that his name as such 
should appear in the list of bishops printed in the hymn- 
book and the Book of Discipline, his support was pro- 
vided for in the regular way, and as to the work he 
might do that was left to himself. The exact resolu- 
tion as to his activities reads thus : " That whether in 
any, and if any, in what work, Bishop Andrew be em- 
ployed, is to be determined by his own decision and 
action, in relation to the previous action of this Confer- 
ence in his case." 

It is to be noted that the leading Southern delegates 
voted for this resolution and the resolutions covering 
the listing of Bishop Andrew's name, and the provision 
for his salary. 

All these things show that the General Conference 
of 1844 did not depose or suspend Bishop Andrew, and 
it has been held that, as far as any legal effect of its 
action was concerned, the Bishop could have gone on 
with his episcopal work though the Conference had 
expressed the opinion that he ought not to do so until 
he ceased to be a slaveholder. 



THE SOUTHERN WITHDRAWAL 63 

Delegates chiefly from the Southern Annual Con- 
ferences entered a formal protest against the action of the 
General Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew. The 
protest is a lengthy document and in it the signers said : 

" We protest against the act, because we recognize in 
this General Conference no right, power, or authority, 
ministerial, judicial, or administrative, to suspend or 
depose a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or 
otherwise subject him to any official disability what- 
ever, without the formal presentation of a charge or 
charges, alleging that the bishop to be dealt with has 
been guilty of the violation of some law, or at least 
some disciplinary obligation of the Church, and also 
upon conviction of such charge, after due form of 
trial." 

To the " Protest " the General Conference made a 
formal, and somewhat lengthy reply, in which the 
action of the Conference was defended on various 
grounds, and, in answer to the specific point in the 
" Protest," the Conference said : " The action of the 
General Conference was neither judicial nor punitive. 
It neither achieves nor intends a deposition, nor so 
much as a legal suspension. Bishop Andrew is still a 
bishop ; and should he, against the expressed sense of 
the General Conference, proceed in the discharge of his 
functions, his official acts would be valid." 

This clearly established the episcopal status of 
Bishop Andrew, that he had not been deposed or 
suspended but still was a bishop who could exercise his 
powers if he pleased, though the General Conference, 
partly for prudential reasons, thought he ought not to 
do so until he ceased to be a slaveholder. 

Such a statement was calculated, one might think, to 



64 AMERICAN METHODISM 

satisfy those who had signed the " Protest " but there 
was something beyond the issue in regard to the 
bishop. The broad issue was the slave question. It 
was becoming the great issue in the nation and in the 
Church as well, and it was becoming a sectional issue. 

The Southern delegates continued in the General 
Conference until the final adjournment but they were 
not satisfied, and, immediately after the close of the 
Conference, they communicated with their constituents 
in the South in a strongly phrased address. 

The agitation went on and about a year after the ad- 
journment of the General Conference of 1844, namely, 
in May of 1845, thirteen of the Conferences in the 
farther South withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, their withdrawal being a protest against the 
action of the General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in 1844 in regard to Bishop James O. 
Andrew and, in defense of their slaveholding bishop, 
they formed a new denomination, which, as indicative 
of its locality, they called " The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South." 

There was, however, a broader consideration and that 
was the identity of their section at that time with hu- 
man slavery. Evidently that fact had great influence 
in determining the withdrawal. 

At this point and this time we attempt no argument 
either pro or con, but simply state admitted or self- 
evident facts. 

Much, however, might be said about the trying cir- 
cumstances, political, social, legal, and economic, of 
that exciting period, with human slavery recognized 
and practically everywhere in the South, while in the 
North there was an overwhelming and growing antag- 



THE SOUTHERN WITHDRAWAL 65 

onism to this so-called " peculiar institution." The con- 
ditions were such that intense feeling was easily aroused, 
while the excitement was calculated to confuse thought 
and multiply perplexities and interfere with calmness in 
action. This, however, is not the place for discussion 
along this line. We merely give the history. 

The fact now to be kept in mind is that the said thir- 
teen Southern Conferences withdrew from the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church and formed another Methodist 
Episcopal Church in and for the South, and as a dis- 
tinguishing title called it The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. The new body started on its career in 
the South while the old and original " Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America " con- 
tinued on its way. 

The occasion and the cause of the withdrawal was 
human slavery. 

Before the close of the General Conference of 1844 
Southern delegates indicated a withdrawal in a paper 
called the " Declaration," which they presented. 

This Declaration clearly shows that the cause for the 
threatened separation from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was the existence of slavery, and the mental 
attitude of the slaveholding states, including the people 
therein who adhered to slavery and who dominated the 
Southern section. 

Thus the Declaration of Southern delegates in 1844 
said : 

" The delegates of the Conferences in the slavehold- 
ing states take leave to declare to the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church that the 
continued agitation of the subject of slavery and 
abolition in a portion of the Church, and the fre- 



66 AMERICAN METHODISM 

quent action on that subject in the General Confer- 
ence and especially the extra-judicial proceedings 
against Bishop Andrew, which resulted, on Saturday- 
last, in the virtual suspension of him from his office 
as Superintendent, must produce a state of things in 
the South which renders a continuance of the juris- 
diction of this General Conference over these Confer- 
ences inconsistent with the success of the ministry in 
the slaveholding states." 

The reasons in this Declaration for leaving the juris- 
diction of the Methodist Episcopal Church are, first, the 
existence of slavery; second, that their work is in 
slaveholding states ; third, the " agitation of the sub- 
ject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the 
Church " ; fourth, the frequent action on that subject 
in the General Conference ; and, fifth, the action in the 
case of Bishop Andrew. 

All through this recital runs the fact of slavery, and 
adherence to human slavery, as against the opposition 
to such slavery. It was manifestly involved in the 
case of Bishop James 0. Andrew for the objection 
made to him was that he had become a slaveholder. 

As to whether the consideration of his case was an 
" extra-judicial proceeding," or whether the action, as 
he was not under charges and was not tried, an " extra- 
judicial proceeding," did not alter the main fact, for it 
was because of slavery and slaveholding that he had 
any special consideration at all. Further, as a matter 
of legal fact, he was not suspended in any sense. 

The Declaration plainly shows that the existence 
of slavery was the reason for the threatened with- 
drawal and the actual withdrawal of certain Southern 
Conferences. 



THE SOUTHERN WITHDRAWAL 6? 

In the other paper called " The Protest," the minor- 
ity representing thirteen Southern Conferences repeated 
the characterization of the action of the General Confer- 
ence in the case of Bishop James O. Andrew, and in it 
said, quoting more fully : " We protest against the act 
of the majority in the case of Bishop Andrew, as extra- 
judicial to all intents and purposes, being both without 
law, and contrary to law. We protest against the act, 
because we recognize in this General Conference no 
right, power, or authority, ministerial, judicial, or ad- 
ministrative, to suspend or depose a bishop of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, or otherwise subject him to any 
official disability whatever, without the formal presen- 
tation of a charge or charges, alleging that the bishop 
to be dealt with has been guilty of the violation of some 
law, or at least some disciplinary obligation of the 
Church, and also upon conviction of such charge, after 
due form of trial." 

To this the General Conference made a " Reply " 
in which it said : " The transaction which had 
brought such distress upon the Church, and threat- 
ened such extensive ruin, was dealt with merely as 
a fact — as a practical difficulty — for the removal or 
palliation of which it was the duty of the General 
Conference to provide. . . . The action of the 
General Conference was neither judicial nor punitive. 
It neither achieves nor intends a deposition, nor as 
much as a legal suspension. Bishop Andrew is still a 
bishop ; and should he, against the expressed sense of 
the General Conference, proceed in the discharge of his 
functions, his official acts would be valid." 

In regard to the threatening division the General 
Conference in its " Reply " said : 



68 AMERICAN METHODISM 

" When all the law, and the facts in the case shall 
have been spread before an impartial community, the 
majority have no doubt that they will fix ' the responsi- 
bility of division] should such an unhappy event take 
place, ' where in justice it belongs? They will ask, Who 
first introduced slavery into the Episcopacy ? And 
the answer will be, Not the General Conference. Who 
opposed the attempt to withdraw it from the Epis- 
copacy ? Not the General Conference. Who resisted 
the measure of peace that was proposed — the mildest 
that the case allowed ? Not the majority. Who first 
sounded the knell of division, and declared that it 
would be impossible longer to remain under the juris- 
diction of the Methodist Episcopal Church ? Not the 
majority." 

On the other hand, in view of the general facts, as 
they were viewed by the Southern delegates, there 
was something in their contention that their connec- 
tion with an antislavery Church would interfere with 
their work in the South where slavery dominated. 

To remain in the Church would be to be ruled by a 
body which was strongly, and increasingly, antislavery 
in sentiment and action. They would be compelled to 
conform to the rules and regulations and if they con- 
formed then they would become unpopular, unaccept- 
able, and undesirable in the South where they lived 
and in which section slavery was paramount. 

On that point the Southern delegates stated a plain 
fact. There was an " irrepressible conflict " and their 
section was mainly on one side, as the section from 
which the majority delegates came was overwhelm- 
ingly on the other. 

Living among slaveholders the Southern delegates 



THE SOUTHERN WITHDRAWAL 69 

could be more popular, have more influence, and secure 
what was called greater success if they were pro- 
slavery, or, at least, not antislavery in their senti- 
ments. On the other hand, if they stood for the 
sentiments of the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
remained in the South they could be martyrs. So 
they chose to disavow the attitude of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, to dissolve all connection with it, 
and to establish a Church South. 

Under the circumstances it can be seen how some in 
the General Conference would not oppose their going 
off if they wished to do so, but the Church was not 
divided by the General Conference of 1844, or by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. Those who resolved to 
go out divided themselves from the Church. 

It is an error to think that all the ministers and mem- 
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church south of Mason 
and Dixon's Line withdrew from that Church to enter 
the Church South, or to suppose that all in slave terri- 
tory withdrew from the old Church. Either supposi- 
tion is an error and far from harmony with the facts. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church continued south of 
the line which then marked the boundary between what 
was called free and what was called slave territory. 
Thus the Philadelphia Conference, which did not with- 
draw, not only took in part of Pennsylvania, but also 
embraced the State of Delaware, the Eastern Shore of 
Maryland, and the Eastern Shore of Yirginia, the latter 
three sections being slave territory, and, so, the Balti- 
more Conference, which in its entirety remained in the 
old Church, took in Maryland, which was slave terri- 
tory, and its southern boundary extended to the Rap- 
pahannock River in Yirginia, all of which was slave 



70 AMERICAN METHODISM 

territory. In the same way the Methodist Episcopal 
Church remained in Western Virginia, and in other 
Southern sections where slavery still continued. 

The bulk of the slave section, however, was embraced 
in and by the new Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
the largest body that ever withdrew from the original 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 



VIII 

THE FIEST DELEGATE FEOM THE CHUKCH 
SOUTH 

THE major part of the Southern Conferences 
having withdrawn and formed an independent 
Church, there were now two Methodist Epis- 
copal bodies, each having a separate government, but 
both governments having a common form of polity, 
their books of Discipline being very much alike, as the 
new Church carried over from the old its various forms, 
laws, and usages. 

Each Church had its own General Conference which 
met quadrennially. The old Church kept up its regu- 
lar order and the new Church took the mid-year in the 
old quadrennium. So the new Church held its first 
General Conference in 1846 and the old Church, retain- 
ing its order, followed in 1848, and so it has continued. 

The new Church, being intended for the South, sig- 
nificantly used that geographical term, indicating di- 
rection and location, in forming its title, and so called 
their organization the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, while the old Church, continuing its existence 
without change, naturally continued the original title, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The general understanding was that the Church 
South was for the South, and that it would limit itself 
to the South, but not have the whole South, for Confer- 

71 



72 AMEEICAN METHODISM 

enoes belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church 
projected into the South and embraced considerable 
Southern and slave territory. Church South author- 
ities entered and claimed territory that was claimed by 
the Methodist Episcopal Church and in the early years 
there was considerable contention between the two 
Churches. After this conflict had gone on for about a 
year the first General Conference of the Church South 
met in 1846 and, towards the latter part of its session, 
decided to send a delegate to the General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church which was to meet 
in 1848. He could not be a member of that body but 
he could in some sense stand for the Church South. 

This looked like fraternity in form at least, but this 
appointment led to an impressive incident in the Meth- 
odist Episcopal General Conference of 1848. This body 
was opposed to the interpretations the Church South 
had placed upon certain acts of the General Conference 
of 1844 and was equally opposed to certain actions of 
the Church South which seemed to grow out of the 
said interpretations and inferences drawn therefrom. 

The delegates in the General Conference of 1848 felt 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church was being wronged 
in various particulars, that the interpretations of the 
Church South were not justified by the exact facts and 
conditions in 1844, that certain things claimed to have 
been done by the General Conference of that year had 
never been legally consummated by the Methodist 
Episcopal Church or by the fulfillment of suggested 
contingencies on the part of the South, while other 
things that some claimed were utterly unconstitutional. 
For these and other reasons the General Conference of 
1848 repudiated certain interpretations and inferences 



FIRST DELEGATE FROM THE SOUTH ?3 

and declared certain actions of the General Conference 
of 1844 to be null and void. 

To such a General Conference having such pro- 
nounced opinions and in the exciting and confusing 
events of only three years after the withdrawal of the 
thirteen Southern Conferences and the creation of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, came the Reverend 
Dr. Lovick Pierce who had gone out with the Church 
South. 

Doctor Pierce had been one of the mighty and influ- 
ential Southern men in the General Conference of 1844, 
and was greatly respected by both sides in that body. 
His own General Conference of the Church South had 
met for the first time only two years before and he 
now appeared in its interest and as its representative. 
On the third day of May, the third day of the General 
Conference of 1848, instead of presenting his credentials, 
he addressed a personal letter " To the Bishops and 
Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in General 
Conference assembled." He was too well informed to 
style it the Methodist Episcopal Church, North, or the 
Church North, or the Northern Church, for there never 
was such a Church with such a title. 

In this letter he stated that the General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, had appointed 
him as its delegate to bear " the Christian Salutations " 
of the Church South and to convey its desire that 
" fraternal relations " should be maintained between 
both bodies, and to make the offer and that it be ac- 
cepted. Then the letter says: "The acceptance or 
rejection of this proposition, made by your Southern 
brethren, is entirely at your disposal; and, as my 
situation is one of painful solicitude until this question 



U AMERICAN METHODISM 

is decided, you will allow Hie to beg your earliest atten- 
tion to it." 

It seemed scarcely tactful at that moment to suggest 
that there might be a rejection of the proffer, and the 
intimation he makes that there could be any question 
was calculated to make it an issue. 

That he should be anxious or nervous about the 
matter at such an early stage when the General Con- 
ference had hardly, or barely, completed its organiza- 
tion, seems rather remarkable. That he should thus 
in the initial period of the session express " painful 
solicitude " and beg the " earliest attention " seems to 
indicate an undue desire to put the Conference on 
record in a hasty action. That he is seeking a formal 
and permanent record is shown by the language of the 
next and last paragraph of the letter, as follows : 
" And I would further say, that your reply to this 
communication will most gratify me if it is made 
officially, in the form of resolutions." 

As he was not presenting his credentials at that time, 
it should have seemed more judicious not to have raised 
any doubt as to the character of the action of the Con- 
ference or the form of such action but to have simply 
notified the Conference of his presence, or if he said 
anything further to have assumed that the Conference 
would give him a favorable reception. 

The very form of the letter was likely to start 
suspicion, put some on their guard, and provoke 
inquiry. 

The first and second days of the session had been 
taken up almost entirely with organization, the for- 
mation of committees, and the reception of memorials, 
and the same was true of the third day, the day when 



FIRST DELEGATE FROM THE SOUTH 75 

Doctor Pierce wrote and presented his letter to the 
Conference. No statement had been made to, and no 
discussion had taken place on the difficulties that had 
arisen during the previous three years between the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Church South. 
It would seem that the great Doctor might have 
selected a happier moment for the presentation of him- 
self and the letter, though he may have calculated that 
it was better for him to enter before the discussion of 
the difficulties could be reached, but it might be inter- 
preted as an effort to bring on the discussion. 

Whatever may have been its purpose, it would seem 
that the presentation of the letter at such an early day 
did rush the Conference into a response before it was 
entirely ready to act with deliberation. 

Doctor Pierce's letter having been read to the Con- 
ference, it was referred to the Committee on the State 
of the Church. The letter was read and referred 
towards the close of the session of the third day and 
the report of the Committee on this matter was pre- 
sented early on the fifth day, thus giving a little over 
a single day for its preparation. The Committee 
recommended the adoption of the following : 

"Whereas, a letter from Rev. L. Pierce, D.D., dele- 
gate of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, pro- 
posing fraternal relations between the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, has been presented to this Conference, and 
whereas, there are serious questions and difficulties 
existing between the two bodies, therefore, 

" Resolved, That while we tender to the Rev. Doctor 
Pierce all personal courtesies, and invite him to attend 
our sessions, this General Conference does not consider 



76 AMERICAN METHODISM 

it proper, at present, to enter into fraternal relations 
with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." 

In this no discourtesy to Doctor Pierce was intended. 
On the contrary the proposition was to extend to him 
" all personal courtesies " and to admit him to the 
sessions of the General Conference. The trouble was 
with the "serious questions and difficulties existing 
between the two bodies," and not with Doctor Pierce 
himself. 

These difficulties, indeed, in their view were serious 
enough. This General Conference held that the Church 
South had gone outside of its own boundaries and tres- 
passed upon territory occupied by the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, and, by these and other acts, had vitiated 
its own understanding of the action of 1844. The 
Conference also held that the Church South had taken 
property which rightfully belonged to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and to this Conference had come, be- 
fore Doctor Pierce's letter was read, memorials and com- 
plaints from Arkansas, Missouri, and Kentucky, " asking 
redress for the grievances " growing out of these move- 
ments. So there were other complaints and allegations 
to the effect that Churches had been wrongfully taken 
from members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
this very General Conference voted that " The pro- 
visions respecting a boundary have been violated by 
the highest authorities which separated from us, and 
thereby the peace and harmony of many of the so- 
cieties on our southern border have been destroyed." 

Of course the other side held a contrary view. 
"With the conflict of views and actions there were 
" serious questions and difficulties " which the Con- 
ference thought should be settled before there could 



FIEST DELEGATE FKOM THE SOUTH 77 

be " fraternal relations " between the two bodies. 
Doctor Pierce presented his letter before these ques- 
tions could even be discussed. 

In view of the logic of the situation, the Keverend 
John A. Collins, of the Baltimore Conference, moved 
" to amend, so that the consideration of the report be de- 
layed until the questions of division of Church property 
and of the division line are settled," but this motion 
was laid on the table. 

Various interesting motions were presented and lost, 
with the exception of one offered by the Keverend 
Joseph S. Tomlinson, of the Ohio Conference. This 
was a motion to amend the report by adding : " Pro- 
vided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be 
so construed as to operate as a bar to any propositions 
from Doctor Pierce, or any other representative of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, towards the settle- 
ment of existing difficulties between that body arid 
this." 

With this addition and qualification the report was 
adopted. 

The next morning the intention of the report was 
further elucidated by the adoption of the following : 
" Resolved, That on the vote of yesterday, laying the 
motion of J. A. Collins, inviting Keverend Doctor Pierce 
within the bar, on the table, we did not intend to ex- 
clude Doctor Pierce, but believed the object of the 
amendment to be fully included in the original report," 
and the Secretary of the Conference was " ordered to 
furnish Doctor Pierce forthwith a copy of the above 
resolution." 

The action shows that the General Conference of 
1848 wished to treat Doctor Pierce with courtesy and 



78 AMERICAN METHODISM 

therefore invited him to attend its sessions and to have 
a seat within the bar which was a distinct courtesy. 
Moreover the Conference expressed a willingness to re- 
ceive from Doctor Pierce, or any other representative 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, any proposi- 
tions looking towards the settlement of existing diffi- 
culties between the two Churches. 

What the General Conference further said was, that, 
in view of the contentions and the unsettled difficulties, 
it did " not consider it proper, at present, to enter into 
fraternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South." The question was not as to Doctor Pierce but 
as to formal fraternal relations with the other Church. 
The Conference requested Doctor Pierce to remain and 
sit with the body, and also to present propositions tend- 
ing to settle the difficulties, and the implication was 
that when the difficulties were adjusted the Conference 
would be willing to establish fraternal relations. 

Apparently the Conference hesitated to recognize 
Doctor Pierce so as to establish formal fraternal re- 
lations because it feared that that would be regarded as 
condoning what it maintained were improper actions by 
representatives of the Church South, and as accepting 
as right what the Conference believed was wrong in 
the course of the new Church in the South. 

Doctor Pierce did not present any proposition in re- 
gard to the difficulties between the two Churches or 
their settlement, neither did he avail himself of the in- 
vitation to sit within the bar of the Conference. He 
did not come to settle difficulties or to show how they 
might be settled. He came to have himself formally 
recognized as a formal fraternal delegate with all that 
that recognition implied. Not receiving that kind of a 



FIKST DELEGATE FROM THE SOUTH 79 

formal recognition, he seemed to regard himself as 
having no mission to promote fraternity and bring the 
two bodies together or intomarmony. 

So on the 9 th of May, about four days after the 
General Conference had acted on his case, he sent to 
the Conference his credentials containing the statement 
of his appointment. Why his credentials were with- 
held until the Conference had acted seems somewhat 
strange. 

Another singular thing is that he also asked for a 
copy of his letter to the Conference, and the Conference 
voted that a copy be furnished him. 

One very striking thing in this whole matter is the 
marked difference between Doctor Pierce's letter to the 
General Conference and the wording of the credential 
given him by the General Conference of his Church. 

The latter document reads as follows : 

"Resolutions passed by the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at its session 
held in Petersburgh, Ya., on May 23, 1846. 

" On motion of F. E. Pitts, Resolved, by a rising and 
unanimous vote, That Dr. Lovick Pierce be and is 
hereby delegated to visit the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, to be held in Pitts- 
burgh, May 1, 1848, to tender to that body the Chris- 
tian regards and fraternal salutations of the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

" In case of the inability of Doctor Pierce to attend 
the session of the aforesaid Conference, the bishops are 
respectfully requested to appoint a substitute. 

" I certify that the above is a true transcript from 
the journal of the General Conference of the Methodist 



80 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Episcopal Church, South. In behalf of the Board of 
Bishops, 

" Joshua Soule, Chairman. 
" Pittsburgh, May h 1848." 

This credential clearly states that Doctor Pierce was 
sent simply to tender " the Christian regards and 
fraternal salutations " of the General Conference of the 
new Church, but Doctor Pierce's letter implied the 
formal establishment of a " fraternal relation," and 
contained a challenge to accept or reject the proposi- 
tion, and a practical demand that " the acceptance or 
rejection " be " made officially, in the form of resolu- 
tions." The form of a challenge that should bring a 
formal and binding public record in writing runs 
through the entire record. The Conference was to be 
put to a test and asked to make a fraternal alliance at a 
time when there were " serious questions and difficulties 
existing between the two bodies." That was the effort 
of the good Doctor. 

The tone of the letter from Doctor Pierce is very 
different from thje credential giving the action and in- 
structions of the Church South General Conference. 
All the credential directed and authorized Dr. Lovick 
Pierce to do was " to tender to that body [the Method- 
ist Episcopal General Conference] the Christian regards 
and fraternal salutations of the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South," but the 
Doctor in his letter raised an issue and demanded that 
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church take an attitude and commit itself by a binding 
action in a certain form and that it be duly recorded in 
the transactions of the body. Doctor Pierce sought to 



FIRST DELEGATE FROM THE SOUTH 81 

gain a diplomatic point and to secure the written proof 
thereof which were very different purposes from the 
simple authorization of the credentials from his Gen- 
eral Conference. 

All they instructed and empowered him to do was to 
convey Christian regards and fraternal salutations. If 
he had presented his credentials and tendered such 
fraternal and Christian greetings there can be no doubt 
the General Conference would have courteously heard 
him. This is proved by the fact that the Conference 
extended courtesies to him, asking him to be present at 
the sessions, to have a seat inside the bar, and to 
present propositions that might tend to diminish the 
differences and to harmonize the two Churches. 

Unfortunately Doctor Pierce did not introduce him- 
self with his credentials, but began with his own per- 
sonal letter and the General Conference was compelled 
to take action without having seen the credentials, 
which contained his authorization and instruction, and, 
apparently, without any very distinct knowledge that 
there was such a credential. Doctor Pierce presented 
his personal letter on the third day of the Conference 
but did not present his credentials until the ninth day, 
and then with seeming reluctance, because one member 
in the discussion had alluded to it, he had promised it, 
and the Conference " ought to see it." It should have 
been presented to the Conference at the very begin- 
ning and before it took any action, and then it would 
have known what he had been sent to do and he might 
have conformed strictly to his instructions. If this had 
been done subsequent misinterpretations, misunder- 
standings, and unintentional misrepresentations might 
have been avoided. 



82 AMERICAN METHODISM 

It may seem also a little singular that the credentials 
bear the date, " Pittsburgh, May 4, 1848," the day after 
the Doctor presented his own letter, and the day before 
the General Conference took action in regard to the re- 
quest in Doctor Pierce's letter. How a document agreed 
upon " in Petersburgh, Va., on May 23, 1846 " and 
signed by Bishop Soule should be dated Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania, where the General Conference was meet- 
ing, and on " May 4, 1848 " when this Conference 
was in session, is not perfectly clear, though there may 
be an explanation. 

Doctor Pierce, on the same day that he presented his 
credentials, also sent the following letter : 

" ' To the Bishops and Members of the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church : 

" ' Eeverend and Dear Brethren, — I have received 
two extracts from your journal of the 4th and 5th in- 
stant. From these extracts I learn you decline receiv- 
ing me in my character as the accredited delegate of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and only invite 
me to a seat within the bar, as due to me on account of 
my private and personal merits. These considerations 
I shall appreciate, and will reciprocate them with you 
in all the private walks of Christian and social life. 
But within the bar of the General Conference I can 
only be known in my official character. 

" i You will therefore regard this communication as 
final on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. She can never renew the offer of fraternal re- 
lations between the two great bodies of "Wesleyan 
Methodists in the United States. But the proposition 
can be renewed at any time, either now or hereafter, by 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. And, if ever made 
upon the basis of the Plan of Separation, as adopted by 
the General Conference of 1844, the Church South will 
cordially entertain the proposition. 



FIRST DELEGATE FROM THE SOUTH 83 

" * With sentiments of deep regard, and with feelings 
of disappointed hope, I am, yours in Christian fellow- 
ship, 

a i T. PlERCE 

" < Delegate from the M. E. Church, South. 
" < Pittsburgh, May 8, 1848? " 



Taking all these facts together, with this letter as a 
climax, the incident impresses one with the idea that 
the good Doctor came determined to force an issue and 
expecting a conflict. Even a superficial consideration 
makes one feel that Doctor Pierce, the old warrior, 
came with the desire, if not a plan, to score a diplo- 
matic and controversial point, rather than to win the 
Conference and to remove the difficulties. 

So before he presented his credentials he made an 
issue over his own personal letter which, to say the 
least, did not reflect the exact form of the authoriza- 
tion in his credentials, and compelled the Conference to 
act, not on the wording in the action of his own Gen- 
eral Conference, but on a different issue which he stated 
in his own letter. 

His parting letter was the climax of a most singular 
procedure on the part of a man of very decided ability. 
An average man would have presented his credentials 
and waited the pleasure of the Conference to fix a time 
when he could be properly received without interference 
with the necessary business, and, when he spoke, he 
would have followed his instructions and presented 
"the Christian regards and fraternal salutations" of 
the body he represented. Doctor Pierce, however, did 
not follow this course but substituted his own letter and 
raised an issue that was not specified in the credentials, 
and forced the Conference to meet that issue, when it 



84 AMERICAN METHODISM 

had hardly completed its organization, and had had no 
time to discuss the difficulties which had disturbed both 
Churches. 

For the Doctor to say that the General Conference 
had refused to receive him as an " accredited delegate " 
is very peculiar, for the General Conference of 1848 did 
not decline to receive him as a delegate, but in its action 
speaks of him as " delegate of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South." It did more than " only invite (him) 
to a seat within the bar," for it opened the way for him 
to speak, and invited him as a " representative of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South," to present " any 
propositions" "towards the settlement of existing 
difficulties" between the two bodies. "What a great 
opportunity it was for a man and a minister of his 
ability to offer suggestions of amity and to explain 
away misunderstandings ! Alas ! he did not avail him- 
self of this opportunity, and, indeed, he does not seem 
even to have attempted to convey to the Conference 
"the Christian regards and fraternal salutations" of 
his own General Conference, excepting in the brief 
reference in his letter on the third day of this Con- 
ference, where he says he was appointed to bear " the 
Christian salutations " of his Church, but it does not 
appear that he made any attempt to do so, and the 
General Conference did not know the contents of the 
credentials until the day he wrote his valedictory 
epistle. 

The General Conference of 1848, in answer to the 
issue Doctor Pierce had raised in his personal letter, 
did not say it did not want, or never would have, 
fraternal relations with the Church South, but that 
owing to "serious questions and difficulties existing 



FIRST DELEGATE FROM THE SOUTH 85 

between the two bodies," it did "not consider it 
proper, at present, to enter into fraternal relations," the 
fair inference being that it would not be unwilling if 
these disturbing questions were settled. The General 
Conference gave Doctor Pierce an opportunity then 
and there to help settle them, but he made no effort to 
do so. 

Evidently Doctor Pierce was not there to admit 
there were any difficulties to be settled or to attempt 
their [adjustment in any way. He was there to raise 
an issue and to commit the General Conference on that 
issue. This may have been the part of a tactician for 
his side but it was not the way to produce peace and 
harmony. 

The Conference, doubtless, felt that to commit itself 
to such a fraternal alliance as the Doctor suggested 
would be an acknowledgment that there were no 
" serious questions," and that the Church South was 
right in its interpretations and acts, a concession the 
General Conference felt it could not, with its convic- 
tions, righteously make. 

In the closing part of his farewell letter Doctor 
Pierce has what sounds like an imperial ultimatum, to 
the effect that there never can be fraternal relations 
between the two Churches except " upon the basis of 
the Plan of Separation, as adopted by the General 
Conference of 1844." That was the very thing that 
this General Conference would not do and later in its 
session it declared that the act here styled the " Plan 
of Separation " was not a plan to separate the Church, 
that the Church never agreed to the action called by 
some the " Plan of Separation," and that, whatever it 
was, it was null and void. 



86 AMERICAN METHODISM 

The other part of the ultimatum may or may not 
have been by authority, namely, that the Church 
South never again would " renew the offer of fraternal 
relations," but that the offer would have to be made 
by the Methodist Episcopal Church sounded like a 
final judgment, bat there was hope of a reopening, and 
when difficulties were settled by agreement, by the 
lapse of time, or by other circumstances the Methodist 
Episcopal Church would not hesitate to propose fraternal 
relations. 

Seventeen years of an interim would pass before that 
could be done, but the time would come. 

In passing, it will be noticed that both Doctor Pierce, 
in his letter, and the first of the General Conferences 
of the Church South in its resolution or credential for 
the Doctor, and that only a year after the formation 
of the Church South, refer to the old Church as The 
Methodist Episcopal Church, the title it had in 1844 
and from the beginning of the denomination in 1784. 
That is an acknowledgment that the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church of 1848 was the same Methodist Episcopal 
Church that had come down from the beginning. It 
was not changed, but the new Church in the same 
documents is styled The Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, showing that it was different, and that by its 
accepted title it proposed to be for a section in the 
Southern part of the country, while the old Church was 
still bearing its legal title " The Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America," and not the 
Church North. Those who made the Church South 
withdrew from the old Church, but the old Church re- 
mained the same. 



IX 

EVENTS FOLLOWING THE FOKMATION OF THE 
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHUECH, SOUTH 

THE thirteen Annual Conferences in slave ter- 
ritory stretching to the Gulf of Mexico, hav- 
ing in convention, in 1845, dissolved their 
connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
established a new denomination called the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, South, a new and very peculiar 
situation developed both ecclesiastically and politically. 
Politically the distinction between the South and 
the North was accentuated. Ecclesiastically the prac- 
tical and actual situation was as follows: The great 
Methodist Episcopal Church was Methodistically domi- 
nant in the Northern part of the country, where slavery 
did not exist, and also extended southward and in- 
cluded a considerable section of slave territory in the 
northern part of which there was much free sentiment 
and there was found a strong attachment to the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, notwithstanding the action of 
the General Conference of 1844 in disapproving of 
slaveholding by one in the episcopacy. Indeed some 
of the strongest supporters of that action were from 
that very section, and some of them insisted on 
stronger and even more drastic action in the case of 
the bishop who had come into the possession of slaves. 
Coming up from the Gulf of Mexico to this locality, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was eccle- 

87 



88 AMEKICAN METHODISM 

siastically in practical and actual control, but, at what 
may be called the point of contact between the then 
work of the two bodies, there was a strip of territory 
running through a number of states which was fre- 
quently alluded to as the " Border," which took in 
slave territory but in which the people had mixed 
sentiments as to the two Churches and the occasion of 
their differences on the matter of a bishop holding hu- 
man beings in the form of servitude called slavery. 
Some were for the old Church and some were for the 
new, so that in this belt of country there was a degree 
of confusion and friction as conflicting claims were pre- 
sented and disputed and new alignments were taking 
place, for readjustments had to be made as preachers 
and people sought to connect themselves with the new 
organization or determined to remain with the old. 

Notwithstanding the paramount position of the 
Church South in the Southern section and the mixed 
conditions on the " Border," the Methodist Episcopal 
Church never was out of the South. A few facts of 
history will demonstrate the accuracy of this statement. 
Thus, immediately after the thirteen Annual Confer- 
ences in the farther South had organized the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, the Methodist Episcopal 
Church still was found in Delaware, Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and other sections of the 
South. 

In the Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 
1848, the next following that of 1844, and the creation 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1845, 
boundaries were marked for the Western Virginia and 
the Missouri Conferences. The Western Virginia was 
to include Western Virginia and part of Maryland, the 



EVENTS FOLLOWING CHURCH SOUTH 89 

Missouri was to include Missouri and Arkansas and the 
territory west and north to the Rocky Mountains, not 
included in the Iowa Conference, and the Oregon and 
California Mission Conference, embracing Oregon, Cali- 
fornia, and New Mexico also was indicated. These 
and other boundaries make it plain that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church still remained in the South, imme- 
diately after, and notwithstanding, the organization of 
the Church South in 1845. 

In the Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 
1852 there were delegates from the Western Virginia 
and the Missouri Conferences and from other Confer- 
ences in slave territory, and in this General Confer- 
ence the boundaries of the Kentucky and the Arkansas 
Conferences were indicated. 

The Kentucky Conference included all Kentucky ex- 
cept that which was in the Western Virginia Confer- 
ence, while the Arkansas Annual Conference, which 
was set off from the Missouri Conference, included 
Arkansas, Texas, part of Missouri, and part of New 
Mexico. At the same time the Missouri Conference 
was changed to include most of Missouri and part of 
the Nebraska Territory. So the Methodist Episcopal 
Church still continued in the South. 

In the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church held in 1856 there sat delegates from West- 
ern Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and other 
Annual Conferences that extended south of the 
Potomac and Ohio Rivers. 

In the Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 
1860 which met nearly a year before the Civil War, 
delegates sat from the Western Virginia, the Kentucky, 
the Missouri^ the Arkansas, the Kansas and Nebraska, 



90 AMERICAN METHODISM 

the California, and from other Conferences that ex- 
tended into the South and far into slave territory. At 
that time the California Conference embraced the State 
of California, the Sandwich Islands, and so much of 
the territories of New Mexico and Utah as lay west of 
the Rocky Mountains, and the Kansas and Nebraska 
Conference embraced those territories at that part of 
New Mexico and Utah which lay east of the Rocky 
Mountains. At this General Conference Kansas was 
separated from Nebraska, and as a Conference was 
made to embrace all Kansas, New Mexico, east of the 
Rocky Mountains, and the State of Texas which had 
been in the Arkansas Conference. 

Thus is it seen that just before the Civil "War the 
Methodist Episcopal Church still was in the South, 
and, west of the Mississippi River, was in the very far 
South. 

In brief, it never was out of the South, and delegates 
representing these Southern sections sat in the General 
Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, not 
only in 1844, but also in every General Conference 
down to and including 1860, and this has been the case 
ever since, and more numerously as the years have 
gone on. 

However in these years the Methodist Episcopal 
Church did not operate in the farther South, east of 
the Mississippi River. For this there were reasons out- 
side of any paper formulations of either body. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church was regarded as unfriendly 
to slavery and that institution made a solid barrier 
where it was very strongly entrenched, as it was south 
of the northern tier of the Southern States. In addi- 
tion, feeling ran high, antagonisms asserted themselves^ 



EVENTS FOLLOWING CHUKCH SOUTH 91 

and dangers threatened. These were practical diffi- 
culties that prevented the Church from penetrating the 
far South even if no other reasons existed. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, however, 
in the meantime, essayed to enter and occupy what 
was spoken of as the North and which was claimed 
and occupied by the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, held in 1848, complained that the Church 
South had, since its organization in 1845, improperly 
entered the Ohio, the Pittsburgh, the Baltimore, and 
the Philadelphia Annual Conferences which had not 
withdrawn but had remained in the old Church. That 
they had acted improperly the representatives of the 
Church South denied and their Church continued to 
push northward not only into slave but also into free 
territory. 

In only about sixteen years after the withdrawal of 
the thirteen Southern Annual Conferences from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and their formation of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, many events had 
occurred which vitally affected both the nation and the 
Church. 

Among other things this ecclesiastical withdrawal 
was followed in these few years by the attempt of cer- 
tain Southern States to withdraw from the United 
States and to establish in their section a new and inde- 
pendent nation. 

John C. Calhoun is said to have foreseen this at the 
time of the withdrawal of the Southern Conferences, 
and to have remarked that it was the beginning of the 
dissolution of the National Union. Henry Clay, an- 
other great statesman, expressed his regret as he inter- 



92 AMERICAN METHODISM 

preted the act and the tendency of the times, and per- 
ceived its influence upon the nation. 

The result was that the country was plunged into the 
great civil war between the said Southern States and 
the National Government of the United States of 
America. 

It is worthy of note that this bloody, expensive, and 
exhausting effort was to divide the National Union 
along about the same geographical line the thirteen 
Southern Conferences claimed when they withdrew 
from union with the Methodist Episcopal Church. This 
may be regarded merely as a remarkable coincidence, 
but the fact is interesting to note, and, in both cases, 
there was a common factor, namely, the local existence 
of slavery and that which went with it, which made a 
divisive force as against the free section and the free 
sentiment. The same force was in action in the Church 
as well as in the State and it was unfortunate for both, 
but in forming judgments we must take into account 
the environments. 

Breaking out in 1861, the war continued about four 
years, ending in 1865 with victory for the union forces 
and the unity of the United States was preserved and 
perpetuated. 

Thus from 1845 to the close of the Civil War in 1865 
there had been many momentous events both for the 
nation and the Church. 

In the short period of twenty years there had been 
the withdrawal of the Southern Conferences from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and the formation of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, while in the nation 
there had been an effort to withdraw a section of the 
country from National Union, which disunion move- 



EVENTS FOLLOWING CHURCH SOUTH 93 

ment was defeated in four years and for the eternal 
benefit of that very section. In that short time, only 
two-thirds of a single generation, these and many other 
important things had occurred. 

In all these years the Methodist Episcopal Church 
had always maintained a very direct relation to the 
South. It had never been out of the South but had 
maintained active operations in that part of the coun- 
try, and when the war, with its devastation, its bitter- 
ness, and its suffering, was closing, this Church of the 
United States thought of the South and considered 
whether it could and should do still more for the South- 
ern section of the same United States of America. 



KENEWED ACTIVITY BY THE METHODIST 

EPISCOPAL CHUKCH IN THE 

FAE SOUTH 

WHEN the Civil War was over the National 
Union was preserved but the great South 
was impoverished. This important section 
had been devastated and the people generally had lost 
their possessions. 

Among the other interests the Church South had 
suffered so severely that it was not able to meet the 
wants of the Southern section in its post-bellum condi- 
tion. 

On this point there is clear and convincing testimony 
from the Southern side. Thus Bishop McTyeire, of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, gives a vivid pic- 
ture of the sad conditions which existed in the South 
immediately following the Civil War. In his " History 
of Methodism," published in 1884, he says : 

" The Church South shared in all the calamities of 
the long and unequal conflict. The distresses of war 
were intensified by the impoverishment and confusion 
which follow invasion and defeat. . . . Hundreds 
of churches were burned, or dismantled by use as hos- 
pitals, warehouses, or stables. College endowments 
were swept away and the buildings abandoned. An- 
nual Conferences met irregularly or in fragments ; the 
General Conference of 1862 was not held, and the whole 

94 



ACTIVITY IN FAR SOUTH 95 

order of the itinerancy was interrupted ; the Church 
press was silent, and many of the most liberal support- 
ers of the Church and its institutions were reduced to 
abject want. The situation, as revealed after peace was 
restored, may not be described. Two thousand one 
hundred and ten battles had been fought, and hundreds 
of thousands of lives and thousands of millions of prop- 
erty had been destroyed." ' 

"With such distressing conditions the South generally, 
but, especially, its religious work needed help, and the 
help could come only from outside the South. 

There was pressing need — wide-spread and deeply- 
seated need — and the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
best able to meet this imperative and immediate need, 
and because of its ability it became its duty to give its 
aid. 

That it had a fraternal spirit towards the distressed 
Church in the South is demonstrated by financial as- 
sistance rendered in time of great stress when it brought 
succor to missionaries of the Church South in a foreign 
country. Bishop McTyeire himself may tell the story. 
He says : " The missionaries in China had been cut off 
from all communication with the home Board. The 
drafts in their hands were honored by the indorsement 
of the Treasurer of the Missionary Society of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, at New York, and served 
their uses for a time ; but this, of course, was only a 
temporary relief, leaving a debt. This debt was hard 
to meet and one of the first efforts was directed to it. 
The lightest sum seemed heavy ; but it was a pleasing 
instance of brotherly kindness, when such acts were 

1 Bishop Holland N. MoTyeire, D. D., " A History of Methodism," 
Nashville, Tenn., 1888, p. 664. 



96 AMERICAN METHODISM 

rare. The catholic-spirited act of Dr. Thomas Carlton 
gave an intimation of what many others felt but had no 
opportunity of demonstrating. Whatever mitigates the 
logic of war is a charity to the human race." 1 

Of course Doctor Carlton acted as representative, and 
under the authority, of the Methodist Episcopal Mis- 
sionary Society, so that it was really the Methodist 
Episcopal Church that came in this instance to the 
rescue of the Church South. This showed no antago- 
nism, but a most brotherly spirit. 

As has been seen, the Methodist Episcopal Church 
had been unduly limited, or had failed to do its full 
duty in one section of the country during the twenty 
years since 1844 and 1845. Circumstances of more 
than one kind had interfered with operations in the 
farther South, the greatest barrier being human slavery 
and a proslavery sentiment that became the stronger 
and more intense the farther the South was penetrated. 

Now, however, the war had caused President 
Lincoln to issue his emancipation proclamation and 
slavery had been destroyed. 

The changed and distressing conditions in, and the 
needs of, the South attracted attention, and had at- 
tracted attention even before the close of the war, and 
many minds began to ask what could be done to help 
that suffering section. 

The South needed help in many ways and in none 
more than in lines of religious work. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church was able — and best 

able — to render aid to that part of the country. It 

knew the South and never had been out of the South. 

Further, it was not a sectional Church. It was not the 

1 Bishop McTyeire, " History of Methodism," p. 665. 



ACTIVITY IN FAR SOUTH 97 

Northern Church or the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
North. It had always been in the South and even 
where slavery was found, and never had a limiting title 
of North, or East, or West. There was a Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, but the old Church was the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America. That was its title and that indicated its 
field. Sectionalism had been destroyed and a non- 
sectional Church could go anywhere. Slavery had 
disappeared and the people of the South needed assist- 
ance. So it was believed that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church now had an opportunity and a duty to extend 
its work throughout the entire South. 

In the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, held in the city of Philadelphia in May, 1864, 
movements, looking towards the return of that Church 
to the farther South, were inaugurated. 

In their Episcopal Address to the General Confer- 
ence of 1864, the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church said : 

"The wall of partition is broken down by that 
very power whose dreadful ministry was invoked to 
strengthen it. And now, the way being open for the 
return of the Methodist Episcopal Church, it is but 
natural that she should reenter those fields and once 
more realize her unchanged title as ' The Methodist 
Episcopal Church of the United States of America.' " 

The bishops also called attention to the duty of the 
Church to reenter the entire South. 

By this General Conference the bishops were author- 
ized to start work and to establish Mission Conferences 
in the farther South. 

The movement was not welcomed by all in the 



98 AMERICAN METHODISM 

South, and in some places there was very positive op- 
position, but while there was antagonism in not a few 
localities, nevertheless the ministers of the old Church 
were received with open arms in many directions. 

Only twenty years had passed since the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, had been formed and claimed 
that section, and numbers of old members were found 
who had never willingly left the old Mother Church, 
and there were some who might have said that when 
the old Church left them, they refused to become 
identified with the new Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. 

In the Alabama-Georgia region, for example, there 
were preachers and people who, rather than join the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, when they found 
the old Church was not accessible to them, formed a 
new and different denomination of their own. They 
never wanted to leave the old Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and others were like them in this feeling. 

In West Virginia, and in the mountains and valleys 
of Eastern Kentucky, and Tennessee and elsewhere, 
where the national union element had existed in con- 
siderable strength, there was a strong desire for their 
own old Church or the Church of their fathers and 
their mothers, and which belonged to the entire nation. 

Soon congregations were gathered, churches were 
formed, and Conferences were organized, and again the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America was at work in every section of the said 
United States in harmony with its name. 



XI 

THE EIGHT TO PEEFOEM EELIGIOUS WOEK 
IN THE FAETHEE SOUTH 

SOME have said that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church had no right to go into the South after 
the Civil War. But it was in the South before 
the Civil War and never had been out of the South. 

Then, perhaps, the qualification is made that the ob- 
jection is to the going of that Church into the farther, 
and the far, South. Naturally one would ask, If the 
Church has always been in the South why should it 
not go anywhere and everywhere in the South ? 

Further, in view of the needy conditions in the South 
after the war one might truly say that the question was 
not of mere right to enter the farther South, but one 
of imperative duty, in view of the distressing conditions 
in that section and the ability of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church to render religious assistance. Such con- 
ditions and such ability to help should override any 
mere technicality that any one might thrust in the way. 

Nevertheless some have persistently declared that 
the Methodist Episcopal Church had no right to pene- 
trate and work in the South after the Civil War. 

Such a suggestion must seem strange to one who re- 
gards the United States of America as a free country 
where individuals and religious organizations are un- 
derstood to have liberty to move and operate in any 
section according to their pleasure. 

99 



100 AMERICAN METHODISM 

One therefore is naturally impelled to inquire why 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States 
of America had not as much right to enter and carry 
on its operations in the South, and the far South, as it 
had to enter and carry on its operations in the West 
and Southwest, or in any other portion of the United 
States. 

Some may answer, in the first place, that there 
were two Methodist Episcopal Churches, namely, the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, North, and the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, and that the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, North, was limited to the North, while the 
South belonged to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. That would be an answer if it were true, but 
it is not correct. It was not correct at the close of the 
Civil War and it never was true. 

It is true that the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, was in the South, and it had voluntarily taken 
the limiting title South, that it had put a limitation 
upon itself by the very use of that qualifying word, 
and that it had voluntarily taken the limiting title 
with the evident purpose of working in the South, but 
there was no Methodist Episcopal Church, North, 
which had taken such a sectional title with such a sec- 
tional purpose, or for any other purpose. 

There never had been, as there is not now, a Method- 
ist Episcopal Church with the qualifying and limiting 
title North or Northern. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, organized in 1784, 
never changed its title, but came down the generations 
with the old, and original title The Methodist Episcopal 
Church in America, or in the United States of America, 
which were synonymous phrases. From the beginning 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 101 

it remained unchanged. It was both in and for the 
United States of America without sectional limitation. 
So there never was a Methodist Episcopal Church, 
North, though after the lapse of about sixty years 
there did come into existence a Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. 

But, in the second place, some have said that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church had no right to go into the 
South, because the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, held in 1844, divided the Church, 
and so divided the denomination that it gave the 
Southern, or slaveholding section to the Conferences in 
the South, which became the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, while it gave the Northern, or non- 
slaveholding section to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
So, it has been reasoned that, as the General Conference 
of 1844 did thus sever the Church and so allot the free 
and slave sections that, therefore, the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church was restricted to the North and had no 
right to enter the South. 

But the General Conference of 1844 did not so divide 
the Church, and did not divide it at all in any way. 

There was no division of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church by the mutual consent of those concerned, so 
that the one original Church ceased to be while from 
the old trunk two Churches branched off. 

The General Conference of 1844 did not turn over 
all the slaveholding section to what became known as 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and all the 
free section, without any of the slaveholding portion, 
to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

It is true that all the territory embraced by the 
Church South was within, but did not cover all, the 



102 AMERICAN METHODISM 

slaveholding section, but the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in 1844 and 1845 and on not only embraced all 
the free territory but also occupied slave territory in 
the South and it remained in the South from 1844 
down to, through, and after the Civil "War, while sla- 
very existed, after its destruction, and is in the same 
section at the present time. It is evident, therefore, 
that there could have been no such territorial division 
as some have assumed. So no argument could be 
based on that to bar the Methodist Episcopal Church 
from the South. 

The General Conference of 1844 did not divide the 
Methodist Episcopal Church into two bodies, neither 
did it set off any part of its territory for the exclusive 
exploitation of an independent body made up from its 
own ministry and membership and to the exclusion of 
itself. In other words it did not sever the Southern 
section from the Methodist Episcopal Church. The 
General Conference of 1844 did not divide the Church. 
Indeed it had no legal right to do so, or to set off any 
part of the United States of America, for there was no 
law that gave the General Conference power to destroy 
itself or the Church, or any part thereof. It was, as it 
is, a body with limited powers, acting within restric- 
tions which were intended to preserve the General Con- 
ference and the Church and to prevent the General 
Conference from destroying the Church in whole or in 
part. 

So the General Conference of 1844 had no right to 
divide the Church or to set off any part of it within the 
United States for it was the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the United States of America, its primal territory 
and habitat 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 103 

As a matter of fact it did not divide the Church, and, 
so, the Methodist Episcopal Church has come down 
without a break in its continuity from the beginning to 
the present time, with its unbroken history, its continu- 
ous records, and its unchanged identity. 

The General Conference of 1844 did not divide the 
Church, and it did not abandon all the slave terri- 
tory, or pass over all the Southern slaveholding sec- 
tion to what became the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. 

But, one asks, was there not something said about 
division or disunion in the General Conference of 1844 ? 
Certainly there was. Certain Southern delegates inti- 
mated and declared that there would be a breaking 
away from the old Church, but the General Conference 
did not vote for, or order, disunion, and, if it had done 
so, its action would have been null and void, for it had 
no authority so to do. 

Something was said, some things were attempted, and 
something was done, but there was not the division of 
the Church, by the General Conference, as some poorly 
informed persons seem to have inferred. 

In brief, this is the history : In the General Confer- 
ence of 1844, after many days of discussion involving 
the question of human slavery, and what should be done 
with the bishop who held slaves, the General Confer- 
ence overwhelmingly disapproved of the act of the 
bishop and expressed the opinion that as he would not 
be acceptable as the presiding officer in all of the Con- 
ferences on that account, he should desist from the per- 
formance of his episcopal functions until he relieved 
himself, or became relieved of, that which acted as an 
impediment and incapacitated him from acting as a 



104 AMERICAN METHODISM 

bishop everywhere, which self -relieving it was thought 
he could accomplish almost any time. 

In view of the expressed opinion of the General Con- 
ference, fifty-one of the delegates presented to that body 
what was called a formal and written " Declaration " in 
which they declared that the action of the General 
Conference in regard to the slaveholding bishop " Must 
produce a state of things in the South which renders a 
continuance of the jurisdiction of this General Confer- 
ence over these [Southern] Conferences inconsistent with 
the success of the ministry in the slaveholding states." 

This deliverance pointed to a meditated and threat* 
ened severance of relationship on the part of signers of 
the " Declaration " and those for whom they spoke. In 
other words it was an announcement of the severance 
of persons and Annual Conferences in " slaveholding 
states " from the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

To this " Declaration " that they could not continue 
under the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and the intimation that they would withdraw from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, the General Conference of 
1844, in a formal document, responded that "in the 
event of a separation," such as the signers of the " Dec- 
laration " had indicated, that is to say, not a separation 
made by the General Conference, but one made by 
the Southern Conferences or the parties represented in 
the declaration which said they could not consistently 
remain under the jurisdiction of this General Conference, 
or, in other words, under and in connection with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, the General Conference 
would take a certain attitude which was recited in the 
document which was prepared as an answer to the said 
" Declaration " that they could not continue under the 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 105 

jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church to which 
they then belonged. 

That the separation was not one made, or to be 
made, by the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, but by the parties represented in the 
" Declaration," is further shown by the statement in 
the response : " That should the Annual Conferences in 
the slaveholding states find it necessary to unite in a 
distinct ecclesiastical connection." 

This language shows that the separation was not 
made in or by the General Conference of 1844, or to 
be made by that body, but was a possible, not certain, 
separation, which might occur subsequently to the 
General Conference, and, if it did occur, would be the 
free action of " the Annual Conferences in the slave- 
holding states " and would be the consummation of the 
threatened act of the Southern delegates from slave- 
holding states, as plainly indicated in the " Declaration " 
of these delegates and in other statements made in the 
General Conference of 1844. 

This General Conference did not make a separation, 
or division, but in view of the " Declaration " and 
similar oft-repeated statements, the General Conference 
stated that, if the said Southern Conferences subse- 
quently did do what their delegates declared must be 
the case, then the General Conference would " meet 
the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest 
equity," and certain things were particularized. 

In other words, the separating or dividing was not 
something that the General Conference of 1844 did, or 
would, do, but some contingent thing the said Southern 
Annual Conferences might themselves possibly do after 
the General Conference of 1844 had ceased to exist. 



106 AMERICAN METHODISM 

That the separation of the Southern Conferences was 
not the action of the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844 appears further 
from the fact that the separation was not made in 
1844, but in 1845, about a year after the adjournment 
of that General Conference, and occurred when that 
General Conference was not in existence. 

As the records of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, clearly state, the separation of the said South- 
ern Conferences was made "by the delegates of the 
several Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the slaveholding states, in General Conven- 
tion assembled," in Louisville, Kentucky, which con- 
vened on the first day of May, in the year 1845, and 
continued in session until Monday afternoon, May 
19th of the same year. 

On Saturday morning, May 17, 1845, this convention 
of delegates from thirteen Annual Conferences located 
in slaveholding states deliberately, and entirely on their 
own motion, solemnly declared " the jurisdiction hith- 
erto exercised over said Annual Conferences by the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
is entirely dissolved ; and that said Annual Confer- 
ences shall be, and they are, hereby constituted a sepa- 
rate ecclesiastical connection . . . to be known by 
the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South." 

The separation or division, therefore, was manifestly 
not made by the General Conference of 1844, or by 
anybody in 1844, but about a year after that General 
Conference had finally adjourned and ceased to be, the 
separation was made by representatives of these South- 
ern Conferences, assembled in Convention in 1845. It 



EIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 107 

was this Southern Convention, acting beyond the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and outside the law, that 
voted to dissolve the connection, and did the separat- 
ing, and having withdrawn formed a new Church for 
the South. 

The Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 1844 
did not divide the Methodist Episcopal Church, and no 
other body divided the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
but representatives of some of the Southern Annual 
Conferences of their own free will separated from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, thus diminishing the bulk 
of its ministry and membership but leaving the original 
Church intact as to its history, its continuous records 
from the beginning, its organism, and every essential 
element of the Church prior to 1845, and a few minis- 
ters and members, or many members and ministers, de- 
parting this life, or departing from the Church of 1784 
and 1844, did not, and could not, destroy or modify its 
identity. The Methodist Episcopal Church did not 
divide itself or destroy itself in any degree or in any 
sense whatsoever, and nobody else did. 

But, in the third place, it may be said, as it has been 
said, that the General Conference of 1844 adopted a 
"Plan of Separation," and, therefore, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church had no right to go into the South. 

If it did adopt a plan of separation, it still is true 
that that General Conference did no separating and 
proposed no separation. 

But the General Conference adopted no document 
that called itself " The Plan of Separation " or " A 
Plan of Separation " or that used the phrase " a Plan 
of Separation." That phrase has been used by individ- 
uals from time to time, by some because they wanted 



108 AMERICAN METHODISM 

something to be so understood, by some because others 
had used the phrase, and, farther, by some who did 
not know and comprehend all the facts in the case. 
Colloquially it has been in use but legally it did not 
represent a fact. 

There was no act of the General Conference of 1844 
that made a separation, or urged a separation, or pro- 
posed a separation, though there was a paper passed in 
view of the " Declaration " that certain Conferences in 
the South could not remain in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and that it was threatened that a large section 
of the South would go out from under the jurisdiction 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

In its answer to the " Declaration " the General Con- 
ference viewed the possibility of the execution of these 
declarations by the going off of the indicated Annual 
Conferences in the South, considered it as a contingency, 
and not a certainty, saying " in the event of a separa- 
tion, a contingency to which the declaration asks atten- 
tion as not improbable." The answer made reply to 
this. 

The paper did not call itself a " Plan of Separation," 
for the General Conference was not planning a separa- 
tion. It was simply meeting the aforementioned " Dec- 
laration " that looked in the direction of the withdrawal 
of certain Southern Annual Conferences. 

The Journal of the General Conference styles it 
" the report of the select committee of nine, on the 
declaration of fifty-one brethren from the Southern 
Conferences," and "the report of the committee of 
nine." These forms were used when it was taken up 
on the eighth day of June. 

This report did not divide the Methodist Episcopal 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 109 

Church or set off the said Conferences in the slave- 
holding section, or advise that it be done, so that, 
strictly and fairly speaking, it was not a plan to 
separate the Church into two parts or a plan to separate 
a part of the Church from the main body, and the 
General Conference did not adopt any plan to separate. 

It did have something to say as to what might, or 
would, be if others should separate from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, but it did not plan to separate or 
plan to bring about a separation. It did state that in 
view of the " contingency " which had been pointed 
out, and " in the event of a separation," not made or 
to be made by the General Conference, but, possibly, 
by the Annual Conferences " in the slaveholding 
states," the General Conference would not resort to 
severe measures, and enforce legal claims, but would 
" meet the emergency with Christian kindness and the 
strictest equity," and the details recited were marked 
evidences of " Christian kindness " and a generous 
equity which went to the very extreme of generosity. 

But the General Conference did not desire the 
threatened separation, did not make it, and did not 
approve or agree to it. It simply dealt with a declara- 
tion that others would have to separate and that their 
separation was doubtless inevitable. 

In the answer the General Conference of 1844 made 
to the declaration of the Southern delegates looking 
towards the withdrawal of Conferences in the " slave- 
holding states " from the jurisdiction of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, no separation of the Church is de- 
clared or decreed, but recognizing the declaration as to 
a withdrawal of some Conferences in slave territory, 
the General Conference said : " That should the An- 



110 AMERICAN METHODISM 

nual Conferences in the slaveholding states find it nec- 
essary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, 
the following rule shall be observed with regard to the 
northern boundary of such connection," and there fol- 
lowed certain provisions " to meet the emergency with 
Christian kindness and the strictest equity," as the 
paper stated. 

There is no suggestion that the General Conference 
made any division, but if there was any separating it 
would be done by the Southern Conferences if they did 
" unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection," as had 
been intimated in the declaration and in various re- 
marks, but all this was declared to be " a contingency," 
and as such it might never occur. 

It is true that in the Louisville Convention of 1845, 
" the delegates of the several Annual Conferences " 
" in the slaveholding states " did speak of a " plan of 
separation." Thus in their act of dissolution they said : 
" We, the delegates of said Annual Conferences, acting 
under the provisional plan of separation adopted by the 
General Conference of 1844, do solemnly declare," 
etc., " and that said Annual Conferences shall be, and 
they hereby are constituted, a separate ecclesiastical 
connexion, under the provisional plan of separation 
aforesaid." 

These delegates said that, but the General Conference 
of 1844 adopted no document that called itself a "plan 
of separation," and took no action which divided the 
Church. Colloquial interpretations no matter by whom 
used cannot have the force of legal phrases, even when 
they are subsequently employed in a formal resolution 
by another body. That there was some confusion of 
thought amid the excitement of those trying months 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 111 

may be conceded, but the facts show that the General 
Conference of 1844 did not plan to separate any part of 
the Church and that it did not divide the Church. 
The separating was done by others and about a year 
after the General Conference of 1844 had ceased to be. 

Should one, in the fourth place, undertake to say that 
the General Conference of 1844 not only divided the 
Church into two parts but also drew a line of sepa- 
ration, which was Mason and Dixon's Line, and, conse- 
quently, the Methodist Episcopal Church had no right 
to go into the South, the answer is that this also is 
erroneous. 

First, such a phrase as the " line of separation " does 
not appear anywhere in the answer to the " Declara- 
tion." Secondly, if any line was drawn it could not 
have been Mason and Dixon's Line, and Mason and 
Dixon's Line was not mentioned in the report of the 
committee of nine or anywhere else in the acts of the 
General Conference. If there was any line it could 
not have been Mason and Dixon's Line which was the 
boundary between Pennsylvania which was free and 
Maryland where slavery was found, and so in popular 
parlance was regarded as the line between the free 
North and the slave South, but the General Conference 
took no action mentioning Mason and Dixon's Line, or 
indicating it as a line of division between two Churches 
or to be the line. Maryland, which was below that 
line, was solidly for the old Church and some of the 
strongest supporters of the action of the General Con- 
ference on the slavery question were delegates from 
the Baltimore Conference in that state, and there was 
no thought of the Baltimore Conference, or of Mary- 
land, separating from the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



112 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Conferences like the Philadelphia, the Baltimore, the 
Pittsburgh, and the Ohio, that adhered to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church extended southward below Mason 
and Dixon's Line, and the Philadelphia, the Baltimore, 
and the Pittsburgh went far below that line. 

That line was not fixed by the General Conference 
of 1844, by the Methodist Episcopal Church, or by any 
authority in 1844 or after 1844. Down to the Civil 
War, as well as later, the Methodist Episcopal Church 
has always been far to the south of Mason and Dixon's 
Line, and even the Church South did not legally claim, 
and, on its own basis, had no right to claim up to the 
historic line of Mason and Dixon. The General Con- 
ference of 1844 marked no such line of division. 

It should also be repeated that the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church has always been in the South, and always 
covered considerable slave territory as long as human 
slavery existed in the United States, and, after slavery's 
extinction, it continued to remain in the same field. It 
had a right to be below Mason and Dixon's Line and 
that line was not a line of separation in the Church. 

In the third place, the General Conference of 1844 
made no " line of separation " to divide the Church, for 
it did not propose to divide the Church, and whatever it 
said relative to a possible separation by other parties 
was simply in view of the declaration of some that 
there must and would be a separation, but this was 
merely a contingency depending upon the future action 
of those making the threat, a contingency that might 
never become an actuality. 

In the fourth place, if there was even a possible line 
of separation it was not made by the General Confer- 
ence of 1844, but would be made by, and be dependent 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 113 

upon, the number of Southern Conferences that might 
declare their connection with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church dissolved. If all who were presumed to 
threaten did withdraw their line would embrace them ; 
if fewer withdrew, their line would be contracted cor- 
respondingly. 

If there was any line, it was, generally speaking, the 
northern border of the most northern of the Southern 
Conferences that would withdraw, but that nobody in 
1844 could predetermine, and it could not be known 
until it was known what Conferences did withdraw, 
which was not determined until 1845 and then by the 
Southern Conferences themselves. 

It is asserted that the General Conference of 1844 
made a " line of separation," but the General Confer- 
ence made no " line of separation." If it had wanted 
to make a line it could not have done so for it could 
not tell, and no one could foretell what Annual Confer- 
ences would " unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connec- 
tion," or if any one would decide to go out from the 
" jurisdiction " of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The answer to the Declaration does mention " the 
line of division," but the General Conference drew 
no " line of division." The answer also referred " to 
the northern boundary of such connection," but the 
General Conference did not run that boundary. That 
had to be made by those who would withdraw, and 
thus divide themselves, from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. The General Conference made no line and 
marked no boundary, and certainly drew no definite 
line, such as Mason and Dixon's Line, or the line of the 
Ohio River. 

If a few or many Conferences withdrew they would 



114 AMERICAN METHODISM 

make their line ; if none withdrew there would be no 
line at all. 

It is also to be remarked that while the answer refers 
to " the northern boundary of such connection," it does 
not, in similar phrase, mention any southern boundary 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

When the thirteen Southern Conferences in 1845 de- 
clared themselves withdrawn by declaring their con- 
nection with the Methodist Episcopal Church "dis- 
solved " and formed what they called " The Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South," they did by that act make a 
line of separation for themselves, as far as they had any 
power to make one, but they had, strictly speaking, no 
power to make a line for the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, even if they could for themselves. 

The line of the Southern Church, made and claimed 
by the above action of 1845, must have been and was 
the northern boundary line of the most northern tier 
of the said thirteen Southern Conferences, modified by 
those who adhered to the old Church. So it is plain 
that the General Conference of 1844 could not determine 
what that would be, and, further, that no line was or- 
dered or authorized by the Methodist Episcopal Church 
through the combined action of its General Conference 
and its Annual Conferences, and, therefore, the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church neither made, nor bound itself 
to recognize, such a line. 

The withdrawing Southern Conferences made a line 
by undertaking to carry those Conferences with their 
boundaries out of the Methodist Episcopal Church. If 
the northern tier of Conferences had refused to join 
with the others that would have carried the northern 
line of the new Church farther South. 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 115 

In that sense the answer to the " Declaration " speaks 
of " the northern boundary of such connection," which 
evidently was made by the most northern boundaries 
of the most northern of the Southern Conferences that 
might or would withdraw, modified by the Churches 
and bodies of individuals who would adhere to the old 
Church. 

Manifestly such a line was not a straight line, but an 
irregular line, following the angles and curves of the 
old Conference boundaries, modified by those that re- 
mained in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Under such an arrangement the northern boundary 
of the Southern Conferences that declared themselves 
withdrawn did not embrace all the slave territory, and 
the Methodist Episcopal Church continued to care for 
sections where slaves were found. 

The Ohio Conference went into Virginia ; the Pitts- 
burgh Conference extended into Virginia ; the Phila- 
delphia Conference, besides its Pennsylvania territory, 
took in Delaware, the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and 
went down to the southern tip of the Eastern Shore of 
Virginia, all of which at that time was slave territory ; 
while the Baltimore Conference, besides its large free 
territory in the North, took in Maryland and a large 
portion of Virginia, down to the Rappahannock River, 
all of which was slave territory. 

A very large part of Virginia continued in the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church and was not within the line of 
the Church South. The Baltimore Conference of the 
old Church went down to the Rappahannock River, and 
the northern line of the new Church South at that 
point did not come farther north in Virginia than that 
river, and, hence, was far south of Mason and Dixon's 



116 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Line and considerably to the south of the District of 
Columbia. So that the line of the Church South did 
not embrace Maryland, Delaware, the city of Wash- 
ington, or the part of Virginia north of the Rappahan- 
nock, and the Methodist Episcopal Church was perfectly 
free to go not only south of Mason and Dixon's Line 
but also to go into slave territory south of the Potomac 
River. 

When the thirteen Southern Conferences withdrew 
in 1845 they, by that act of withdrawal as Conferences, 
made their own limitations, and the northern boundary 
of their new Church was the northern boundaries of 
the most Northern Conferences of the thirteen, possibly 
modified, which at the eastern end did not come farther 
north than the Rappahannock River in Yirginia. That 
was their line within which they were logically self- 
limited, because their Conference lines did not go 
farther north, while above that line the Conferences 
did not withdraw with them. The Church South, 
however, speedily disregarded that line which was the 
line of its own Annual Conferences. 

The General Conference of 1844 did not do so, but 
even if it had passed an act dividing the Church and 
drawing a line of separation, that was not the act of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and by itself was null and 
void. 

The General Conference of itself did not have power 
to do such things. Such power had not been given it 
by the Constitution of the Church. It had power to 
make " rules and regulations " for the Church but it 
had no power to destroy or divide the Church. No 
such power had been given the General Conference 
and no such power was inherent in it. It had no 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 117 

power to destroy or sever the Church in the United 
States in whole or in part. That indeed would prevent 
its making rules and regulations for the severed part, 
whether large or small, as the case might be. 

The General Conference is not supreme in all things 
over the Church. It is not the whole Church, but the 
creature of the Church, and must act within the au- 
thorizations and privileges made by the Church in its 
Constitution. The General Conference is only a part 
of the Church, and, certainly, it would take not less 
than the whole Church to destroy itself in whole or in 
part. 

One may be told that the Supreme Court, in 1854, 
decided that the General Conference had the power to 
divide the Church in 1844 and that at that time it ex- 
ercised it. 

That, however, was not the decision. The decision 
of the court was on the question of the right of the 
Church South to a share in the Book Concern prop- 
erty, and the court held that the Church South was 
" entitled to their share of the property of the Book 
Concern." There was ground for that decision on the 
basis of equity. The Church South was a fact. Its 
preachers and people had helped to build up the Book 
Concern, and the point could have been made that, 
therefore, they were entitled to an equitable share. 

That was the case and that only was the decision. 
Remarks made by the Justice, other than the decision, 
might or might not have been made and the decision 
would have been just the same. Obiter dicta, or aside 
remarks, by the way, and not on the main point, are 
not the decision, and sometimes judges make observa- 
tions which are not essential to, or a logical basis for, 



118 AMERICAN METHODISM 

the decision even if it is a sound decision. The decision 
is the important thing and not the casual remark. 

So, sometimes learned lawyers and judges who know 
civil law may err in Church matters through lack of 
knowledge as to ecclesiastical history and ecclesiastical 
law. 

In this case when the Justice remarked that " The 
same authority which founded that Church in 1784 has 
divided it," he stated as a fact that which was not a 
fact, for the authority that founded the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in 1784 was not the authority that was 
vested in the General Conference of 1844. 

The organizing Conference of 1784 possessed the 
sovereign power and was the only sovereign power in 
the ecclesiastical organization of that time, but in 1844 
the sovereign power was not vested in the General 
Conference, as it is not now, and therefore it did not 
possess the same authority as was possessed by the 
Conference of 1784, and, consequently, the General 
Conference of 1844 had no authority to divide the 
Church, and, therefore, could not have divided the 
Church in 1844. 

The Conference of 1784 possessed the whole power 
of the Church but the General Conference of 1844 did 
not possess all power but was a limited body. 

Down to, and including, the General Conference of 
1808, the* sovereign power was in the General Confer- 
ences but not in the General Conferences after that 
year. Prior to, and during, the Conference of 1808 the 
General Conference had all power because it contained 
all the governing force of the Church, but, in 1808, the 
Constitution then adopted changed the body to a dele- 
gated General Conference and divided the sovereign 



EIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 119 

power between the new delegated General Conference 
and the Annual Conferences, and the General Confer- 
ence of 1844 was that kind of a modified and limited body. 

After 1808, questions of a constitutional, or organic, 
nature required the concurrent action of the General 
Conference and the Annual Conferences. These were 
facts with which the Justice was not familiar. 

In regard to the matter in question, the General Con- 
ference of 1844 could not of itself decide. It could not 
make a division of the Church in the United States of 
America or draw a line of separation, or approve of a 
separation made by others, or give up territory in the 
United States, and, even if the General Conference had 
the right to initiate such an action, it was not complete 
until the Annual Conferences had agreed to the act 
in the constitutional way. If in this case there was 
any such action attempted by the General Conference, 
the Annual Conferences never concurred. On the con- 
trary the Annual Conferences refused to concur and 
voted down that which was sent around to them on 
this subject. So whatever was said or done as to 
division, or plan, or line of separation by the General 
Conference of 1844, if anything was done, it was invalid 
because it never received the consent of the Annual 
Conferences. In other words, even if the General Con- 
ference alone did adopt a plan providing for this sep- 
aration, it had no legal force. 

This so-called provisional arrangement of 1844 was not 
a finality in itself. It was to meet a threatened con- 
tingency and had to run the gauntlet of conditions 
which did not yet exist and also the scrutiny and votes 
of the Annual Conferences, where the votes of three- 
fourths of the ministers would be required. 



120 AMERICAN METHODISM 

This was recognized by the Southern side. Thus 
in the General Conference of 1844, Doctor Paine, 
afterwards Bishop of the Church South, said : " This 
separation would not be effected by the passage of 
those resolutions through the General Conference. 
They must pass the Annual Conferences, beginning at 
New York, and when they came round to the South, 
the preachers there would think and deliberate and feel 
the pulse of public sentiment, and of the members of 
the Church, and act in the fear of God, and with a 
single desire for His glory." 

It is sufficient to say that the Annual Conferences 
never gave their consent, and, therefore, whatever was 
intended by the General Conference was not completed, 
and was not binding, and, on the basis of Doctor Paine's 
statement, whatever may have been attempted by that 
General Conference was not done, as it was not agreed 
to by the Annual Conferences. 

Then the very next General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, that of 1848, utterly re- 
pudiated every act or understanding or supposition 
that the General Conference of 1844 was alleged to 
have done or intimated in the nature of division, plan 
of separation, or line of separation, including the pos- 
sible division of the Book Concern property. 

This repudiation was based on several grounds, and, 
particularly, on the ground of unconstitutionality. 

The General Conference of 1848 of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church reviewed the events of 1844, 1845, 
and the other years of the quadrennium, and carefully 
formulated its judgment. 

Among other things it said : " "We claim that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, exists as a distinct 



EIGHT IN FARTHEE SOUTH 121 

and separate ecclesiastical communion solely by the act 
and deed of the individual ministers and members con- 
stituting said Church." 

" We affirm it to be impossible to point to any act 
of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church erecting or authorizing said Church ; nor has 
the said General Conference, or any individual, or any 
number of individuals, any right, constitutional or other- 
wise, to extend official sanction to any act tending di- 
rectly or indirectly to the dismemberment of the 
Church." 

The General Conference of 1848, having recited and 
summarized the facts involved, declared that " Three- 
fourths of the members of all the Annual Conferences 
did not concur in the vote to alter the sixth Restrictive 
Eule, and thus sanction the Plan, for the accommodation 
of which said alteration was asked. And the condi- 
tions and the requirements of said Plan have been 
violated, and hence said Plan is, and, from the first 
failure of the conditions of said Plan, or either of 
them, has been, null and void." 

" Finally, having thus found, upon clear and incon- 
testable evidence, that the three fundamental conditions 
of said proposed Plan have severally failed, and the 
failure of either of them separately being sufficient to 
render it null and void, and having found the practical 
workings of said Plan incompatible with certain great 
constitutional principles elsewhere asserted, we have 
found and declared the whole and every part of said 
provisional Plan to be null and void." 

Thus the General Conference of 1848 annulled every- 
thing that had been done in this matter by the pre- 
ceding General Conference of 1844, and consequently 



122 AMERICAN METHODISM 

nullified certain misunderstandings of what had and 
had not been done. This annulment was on various 
grounds and one was that what had been attempted 
had been automatically annulled by the failure of con- 
ditions and by the actions of parties who had wanted 
such a scheme. 

If there was anything in the nature of a line of sepa- 
ration it was almost immediately obliterated. 

The Church South ignored it and wiped it out by 
going over it to the northward. 

If there was any line of separation the new Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, South, almost immediately went 
north of it. If there was a line of separation, the Church 
South, by passing over it, abrogated the line and an- 
nulled any understood or possible agreement by its act 
of going out of the South and into the North. Thus 
its work was carried into Ohio almost immediately, 
and within four years after the organization of the 
Church, say in 1849, it was as far north as Oregon, 
which was not slaveholding territory, and by that fact 
obliterated any line of separation that might have been 
presumed to exist, and by such passing over recognized 
and declared that there was no limiting line. 

In this statement at this time we are not proposing 
to find any fault with the action, but simply to show 
that the supposed line marked by the thirteen Annual 
Conferences was very promptly disregarded by them- 
selves. 

It may be said, possibly, that soon after the forma- 
tion of the Church South, the line was disregarded by 
both parties, but we will not pause to decide that, but, 
if that was the case, and if there had been any con- 
tract, it had been abrogated by both parties, and the 



EIGHT IN FAETHER SOUTH 123 

line, if there was any, was obliterated before the end 
of the Civil War, and, indeed, before the war 
came on. 

If, then, there was no limitation on the Church 
South, there was none on the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. If so, then there is no force in the claim that 
the Methodist Episcopal Church had no right to go 
South, for it had at least as much right to go South as 
the Church South had to go North. 

If there had been a line drawn by mutual agreement, 
the contract was quickly cancelled, so that long before 
the Civil War there was no sharp line that constituted 
an impassable barrier, and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was not bound or restricted by an asserted but 
obliterated line if that Church wished to go into the 
farther South. 

This Church had restrained itself and had kept out 
of the farther South for a score of years, but it had a 
right to go if it pleased and, towards the close of the 
Civil War, it felt the Southern need and then it did 
please to go as it had a right. 

It is also a fact that long years ago the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, formally recognized the fact 
that there was no observed line of separation. This 
it did in its very first General Conference after the 
Civil War. 

The General Conference of the Church South, in 
1866, adopted the following : 

" Besolved, That as the geographical line defining 
the territorial limits of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
established by the General Conference of 1844, has 
been officially and practically repudiated and disre- 



124 AMERICAN METHODISM 

garded by the Methodist Episcopal Church, therefore 
we are bound neither legally nor morally by it ; and 
that we feel ourselves at liberty to extend our minis- 
trations and ecclesiastical jurisdiction to all beyond 
that line who may desire us so to do." 

In the Journal of that 1866 General Conference of 
the Church South, this action is indexed as the " re- 
pudiation of the line between the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." 

The Methodist Episcopal Church had claimed that 
from the beginning the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, had gone beyond its own line, and one writer 
has asked : " Why did not the Southern Church 
abrogate the line before commencing operations on the 
other side ? " 

"Whatever answer may be made to that question, it is 
plain that, on its own showing, the Church South con- 
fessed to having abrogated the line, if there was one, 
and could never again fairly claim the existence of such 
a line. This action of 1866, for example, precluded the 
raising of a claim thereafter by the Church South to 
any line of division. 

Long years before that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church had said there was no restrictive line to prevent 
its going into the far South, and now the Church South, 
which had previously gone north of its supposed line, 
formally declares there is no restraining line. Both 
being agreed upon that abrogation of any supposed, 
imaginary or real line of separation, neither could again 
urge a separating line against the going of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church into any part of the South. 

Even if the Methodist Episcopal Church had no right 
to go into the farther South in 1845, it does not follow 



RIGHT IN FARTHER SOUTH 125 

that it had no right to go in 1865, twenty years after- 
wards and thereafter. 

Circumstances had changed. Many vital changes 
had taken place. The destruction of slavery had rad- 
ically changed relations and issues, and, it may be said, 
even contracts, for no one could fulfill or be bound by 
contracts based on slavery which had been outlawed. 

With the sweeping results of the war, and, partic- 
ularly, the emancipation of the slaves, there was a 
new era, and plans and contracts made necessary by 
slavery were, by these new conditions, rendered in- 
operative and so were abrogated. 

Slavery which had been the real barrier had been re- 
moved and destroyed, and, having disappeared, no line 
of separation in the field now existed. 

If the Methodist Episcopal Church had no right to 
go into, or be in, the far South in 1845, it certainly had 
in 1865. With the end of the Civil War there was an 
open door and there was room and need for more workers. 
The people were in need of religious assistance, and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church had the men and the 
money to help meet the need. It was an opportunity 
and a duty. The need existed and the duty followed. 

There were people in the South who wanted the old 
Church, and soon there would be many more, and they 
had a right to have the Church of their choice, as had 
any people in this free country. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, as a Church, still re- 
mained intact, just as it had been before 1845, though 
it had lost a considerable body of ministers and mem- 
bers, through their voluntary withdrawal, for which 
they alone were responsible. Then it was diminished 
in bulk, but, as a Church, it still was the same. 



126 AMERICAN METHODISM 

It remained, as it always had been, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 
without any sectional limitation. It was in the United 
States and for the United States, and for all the United 
States of America, and had a right to go into the South 
as it had anywhere else in the United States of America. 

It was in the South, it had a right to be in the South, 
and it had a right to penetrate into the farther South. 
It was needed and it went. 



XII 

EESULTS OF THE WOEK OF THE METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL CHUECH IN THE SOUTH 

WITH the fact before us that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church has always been in the 
South and that about the close of the Civil 
War it once more went into the farther South and into 
the very far South, the question may be asked : What 
has been accomplished by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the South and, particularly, in that part of 
the South which had been more or less occupied by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South ? 

In brief it may be stated, in reply, that it sent many 
workers into that field and contributed millions of dol- 
lars for the benefit of the people of the South. That 
does not measure but it partially indicates the spirit of 
sacrifice and service. When a Church and its mem- 
bers contribute so much, the gifts and the self-sacrifice 
prove a deep interest in the undertaking, and when to 
this it is added that many of the Christian workers 
never returned to their Northern homes, but died and 
were buried among the Southern people among whom 
they labored, the proof of Christian devotion is so evi- 
dent that no question can be raised. This was part of 
the outlay and the only income expected was the 
spread of Christ's kingdom and the Christian uplift of 
population. 

127 



128 AMERICAN METHODISM 

The Methodist Episcopal Church went to reach and 
benefit the people generally without respect to class 
distinctions. Its ministrations were offered the white 
people and a considerable portion of the white popula- 
tion was speedily reached. The union peoples of the 
mountains and the valleys welcomed it. The " poor 
whites," as some were styled, saw in this Church a 
powerful helper, now that their day of opportunity 
had come. People who with their fathers had always 
wanted the old Church and regretted its absence, re- 
joiced upon its return. People who saw the light of 
the rising sun of a new day for a new South hailed its 
coming. And Northern white people who had gone 
from the North during the closing period of the war, 
and after its close, desired the ministrations of the old 
non-sectional Church. 

It reached the colored people just freed from the 
shackles of slavery and in that most trying period of 
ignorance and inexperience when they were half-blinded 
and confused and were groping their way to real free- 
dom. 

The undertakings of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the South were varied, mighty and effective. 

Naturally, the first form of effort was evangelistic. 
The preacher went with the Gospel of Jesus, congrega- 
tions were gathered, people were converted, members 
were organized, and church buildings were erected. 
The religious work carried with it the moral, and, along 
both lines, efforts were energetically made for the uplift 
of all classes of the population, and, wherever the 
Methodist Episcopal Church went, it was a mighty force 
for morals, for religion and for intelligence. 

Next to its religious and moral work in the South, 



RESULTS IN SOUTH 129 

the Methodist Episcopal Church has done a great edu- 
cational work. It sent qualified teachers, formed 
schools, erected buildings for the accommodation of 
teachers and pupils, and has given a curriculum, carry- 
ing the student through the kindergarten and primary- 
school up to the college and university, and in the mean- 
time giving industrial training, and for those who need 
a technical education it has had its technical schools for 
the intending minister, teacher, and physician. 

For this evangelical and educational work it has sent 
its best men and women and given its millions of 
dollars, and repeated over and over again the contribu- 
tions of laborers and of money. 

This has not been a waste but has accomplished a 
work that others were not doing and could not do at 
all or could not do to the same extent. 

It has helped the religious work of the South, 
strengthened its moral forces, and exerted a mighty 
uplifting power for the South that has told for good 
and will tell more and more in future years. It was a 
strong reinforcement for every agency for good, and, 
especially, for all the evangelical Churches, and that 
in a section where there have never been too many 
workers for the moral and religious uplift of all the 
people. 

The benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church to 
other denominations in the South, and to that section 
generally, never can be tabulated, but manifestly it 
must be immense. With its thousands of Christian 
workers, its many schools and churches, and its millions 
of money spent in good deeds, it could not be other- 
wise. 

It is not too much to say that one of the greatest 



130 AMERICAN METHODISM 

blessings that ever went to the South was the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church. Thus take a single point. 

Going into the farther South at the close of a great 
Civil War it was just in time to strengthen fraternal 
feelings and to help harmonize those who had been 
warring with each other, so that, in a patriotic sense, 
the return of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the 
middle and farther South has been a great aid to the 
National Union. Not a sectional Church, but for all 
the United States of America, it has diminished sec- 
tionalism in the South, promoted unification, and 
strengthened the common national spirit. 

Not only has it been politically, though not in a 
partisan sense, the greatest unifying influence in a 
territory where there were and are many sectional 
religious denominations, but it has also greatly strength- 
ened general Protestantism in that section. 

Practically it has added vigor to the common 
evangelical work, and has benefited the population 
socially, intellectually, and religiously. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church is not in the South 
in antagonism to any other Protestant Church, but to 
give the people what they need and that for which it 
stands, and the Methodist Episcopal Church is ad- 
mittedly the exponent of some things that others do 
not stand for, or do not stand for in the same degree, 
or with the same emphasis. It has its own mission 
which is, probably, somewhat different from that of 
any other Church, and which it alone can prosecute in 
its own way. 

One might venture to suggest that nothing ever 
benefited the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
quite as much as the return of the Methodist Episcopal 



RESULTS IN SOUTH 131 

Church of the United States of America to the entire 
Southern section. Even in the course of twenty years 
there was time to evolve and develop differences, so 
that one branch of Methodism might begin to crystallize 
a somewhat different type of Methodism. The coming 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church was calculated to 
modify or prevent this danger, and to present to the 
people a common standard type which would tend to 
give a oneness to the Methodism of both Churches in 
the Southern section of the country. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church in carrying its 
multitude of workers and its millions of money into 
the South, and carrying on its many ecclesiastical, 
educational, and benevolent enterprises, has, to say the 
least, stimulated the Church South to greater effort. 

Further, the Methodist Episcopal Church has light- 
ened the load of the Church SoutlTby undertaking 
work which the latter Church could not do, and, 
indeed, it may be said, which the other evangelical 
Churches could not do, for even to-day more workers 
are needed and there is room for all. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church by its work in the 
South has helped to solve what is termed the " negro 
problem," and that on the basis of the Gospel of Christ 
and Christ's Golden Kule. 

Going to the colored people when they were just 
emerging from slavery, when in their enforced igno- 
rance they were groping their way like men in the dark, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church taught them the alpha- 
bet, how to spell, and how to read, and, so, put them 
on the road to all necessary and possible human learn- 
ing. It has gone with and guided hundreds of thou- 
sands of them through the half century and more since 



132 AMERICAN METHODISM 

the emancipation of their race, and educated the chil- 
dren of the children of those who came oat of slavery, 
until they have their own teachers and pastors, and 
their own lawyers and doctors, and the general illit- 
eracy has been immensely reduced. More than that, 
it has gathered hundreds of thousands into their own 
Churches and Sunday-schools, formed them into their 
own Annual Conferences, with their own presiding 
elders, so that, practically, they have an ecclesiasticism 
of their own in which they have had a training to man- 
age their own church affairs. Beyond that, or included 
in that, the Methodist Episcopal Church has taught 
them to be moral in their living and to be law-abiding 
citizens, and this with a success which has called forth 
commendations from those who are not entirely freed 
from former prejudices. One reason the Methodist 
Episcopal Church could do this great work was because 
the colored people regarded it as free from the in- 
fluences of slavery — from which their race had been 
freed. 

Some have imagined that all, or most, of the work 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South has 
been for and among the colored people. This, how- 
ever, is a misapprehension. The Methodist Episcopal 
Church went not to a single race, but to the people of 
the South, and it proposed to reach all the people who 
needed it and wished for its ministrations and its care, 
as far as it had ability and opportunity to serve them. 

So it went to the white people in the South. Some 
gladly received it at the beginning and the work spread, 
so that now the Methodist Episcopal Church has hun- 
dreds of thousands of white people in its Southern 
membership, and, what may surprise many, a larger 



KESULTS IN SOUTH 133 

white membership than its colored membership in the 
South. 

It has built churches, schools, and colleges for the 
white people. It has followed and cared for many- 
white immigrants from the North and "West who have 
been pouring into the South, but who did not want a 
Southern Church, many of whom already belonged to 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

It has helped the white union element in the South 
by diminishing sectionalism and intensifying the na- 
tional feeling, and its non-sectionalism has called forth 
the sympathy and approval of native white Southerners 
who love the nation. 

Many of its ministers are typical white Southerners 
who themselves or their fathers fought in the fratri- 
cidal war of the sixties. They love the flag of the 
Union and they love the Church that is for the entire 
United States. 

One result of this is that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the South is not only a Church in the South 
but a Church of the South, wanted not only by North- 
ern people who have gone into the South but by South- 
ern people who are " to the manner born " and who 
are truly Southern in their traditions and affections 
but who are willing to keep old political issues out of the 
Church of Christ. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church has blessed both 
white and colored in the South. By sending preachers 
and teachers, and raising others on the soil, it has 
greatly added to the force of Christian workers, giving 
more than the South could put into the field, and put- 
ting into the work vast sums of money the South itself 
could not furnish. Aiding in the work of all the Prot- 



134 AMERICAN METHODISM 

estant Churches in that section, it has been wherever 
it has gone a beneficent influence and an uplifting 
power. 

What the Methodist Episcopal Church has done for 
others in the South cannot be calculated. "What it has 
accomplished for itself in the South can only be esti- 
mated in part. 

It has built hundreds of churches and schools and 
has invested immense amounts of money in such prop- 
erties. 

For more than half a century it has been carrying on 
its work through its Board of Home Missions and 
Church Extension, its Woman's Home Missionary 
Society, its Educational Boards, and other agencies 
with zeal and liberality. A Church that has attempted 
and done so much cannot be other than a beneficent 
influence. 

It has gathered a communicant membership of away 
beyond half a million, not counting Sunday-school 
scholars, and many adherents who are attached to the 
denomination, though they are not formal and legal 
members, and, hence, are not counted. 

Out of the movement have come a considerable num- 
ber of Annual Conferences covering the entire South, 
and now, in the very territory which was occupied by 
the thirteen Southern Conferences that withdrew in 
1845, the Methodist Episcopal Church has more mem- 
bers than the Church had in that section in 1844 and 
1845, before the Southern Conferences went out. 

In 1844 the entire Church throughout the United 
States had 1,171,356 members and 4,621 preachers. In 
1845 when the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was 
organized the new Church claimed 459,569 including 



KESULTS IN SOUTH 135 

1,519 travelling preachers and 124,961 colored mem- 
bers. That left in the old Methodist Episcopal Church 
about 713,306 members and 3,102 ministers. 

The Church South had a total membership, deduct- 
ing the 1,519 preachers, of 458,050 members. Sub- 
tracting the colored members, numbering 124,961, 
the Church South at that time had 333,089 white 
members. 

As against the total membership of the Church 
South in that section in that time, namely 458,050, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in that locality now 
has over half a million. 

More than that as against the white membership of 
the Church South at the time of the withdrawal, 
namely, about 333,089, the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
it is calculated, now has in that section over 300,000 
white members, a fact that may astonish many who 
have not been definitely and accurately advised in re- 
gard to the work of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
that Southland, and these are below the real figures. 

Beyond the more than three hundred thousand white 
church-members of the Methodist Episcopal Church of 
legal standing in the South, there is a very considerable 
white constituency which adds greatly to that number 
as showing the sphere of actual influence and care of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in that section. Thus the 
white Sunday-schools have as many as or more than 
are in the regular membership of the Church. Allow- 
ing for possible duplications this would make an aggre- 
gate of members and Sunday-school scholars of from 
five hundred thousand to six hundred thousand white 
persons. Again rating the adherents who are not 
actual members at the usual proportion of three to one, 



136 AMERICAN METHODISM 

on the basis of three hundred thousand white members, 
that would make nine hundred thousand white ad- 
herents which would total one million, two hundred 
thousand white members and adherents in the South. 
If we estimate two adherents to one member then it 
would make a total of nine hundred thousand white 
members and adherents. Or if we count one adherent 
to each regular member then there would be a total of 
over six hundred thousand, and counting the more than 
three hundred thousand in the white Sunday-schools of 
the Church, a total of nine hundred thousand. 

These figures which are a very conservative estimate 
would indicate a white constituency of members and 
adherents of a million or more who are more or less 
under the care and influence of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church in the South. 

Then taking the total membership of white and 
colored of more than five hundred thousand with about 
the same number in the Sunday-schools, and adding the 
adherents in the same proportion, it would figure out a 
great mass of people numbering, perhaps, two millions, 
under the influence of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the South and for which this Church is more or less 
directly responsible. 

Evidently the Methodist Episcopal Church has ac- 
complished very much in the South and its relation to 
the South is not to be treated as a trifling affair or a 
matter of little moment. 



xin 

HAS THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
ANY PRESENT DUTY IN THE SOUTH? 

THE good work done in the South during the 
last half century by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church will be conceded by all who are well- 
informed and fair-minded. Some, however, may ask : 
Is the Methodist Episcopal Church needed at this time 
in the South ? In other words, Has the Methodist 
Episcopal Church any longer a mission in the South 
and for the South ? 

Why not ? "Why should the question be raised ? 
Does any one ask whether it has any mission in the 
North, in the West, in the Northwest, or in the South- 
west ? Certainly not. Then why should any one ask 
whether it has any mission in and for the South ? 

The Methodist Episcopal Church is the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America and 
the South is in the United States of America and, 
therefore, the Methodist Episcopal Church is for the 
South as it is for the other parts of the country. 

On general principles it is to be assumed that it has 
a mission there as it has elsewhere, and the burden of 
proof to the contrary would be upon those who would 
urge that it ought not to be in the Southland. 

Why should it not be in the South ? It is an Amer- 
ican Church and for America and the South is in Amer- 

137 



138 AMERICAN METHODISM 

ica. It is a Church calculated to do, and is doing 
evangelical Protestant work which is needed in the 
South, as it is needed in other parts of the land, too 
much of which is not now done, notwithstanding the 
service there rendered by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

The needed work makes a needed mission in the 
South for this Church and a large part of the Southern 
population needs, appreciates, and loves the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. This part of the population wants 
the Church, asks for the Church, and would feel that it 
had suffered a great loss if it was deprived of its min- 
istrations. The people composing this section of the 
population want this Church and as free Americans 
they have a right to have the Church they want. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church has now a right to 
be and continue in the South for a considerable part of 
it is in the South, identified with the South, and as 
genuinely Southern as the South itself. It is rooted in 
the South and its mission there is to grow, to shelter, 
and to bear fruit in the South. 

It has a mission to care for those who have gathered 
under its wing in that section. It is needed there at 
this time to provide for the hundreds of thousands who 
have come into its fold, many of whom had not been 
born when the controversies of the forties and the Civil 
War of the sixties brought so much distress and disas- 
ter. With many of the Methodist Episcopalians in the 
Southern section these things are not even memories. 
They have heard about them but they never knew any- 
thing about them. 

Further, not a few of them are from the North and 
the Methodist Episcopal Church was the Church of 



PRESENT DUTY IN SOUTH 139 

their childhood, and their Southern born children are 
genuine Southerners who have never been under the 
influence of any other Church. 

It is needed in the South to care for its more than 
half a million of Southern communicant members, its 
more than half a million scholars in its Southern 
Sunday-schools, and its many more than half a million 
of Southern adherents who are affiliated in feeling or 
conviction and who more or less regularly attend its 
services and come to some extent under its Christian 
influence. 

This possible million and more look to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church for religious instruction and moral 
guidance. Can any one be sure that all these will just 
as willingly hear the voice of another and just as gladly 
follow into another fold ? And, if the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church should leave them, who can be sure that 
they will find as good pastures and thrive as well else- 
where ? To care for these, who are a part of itself, 
constitutes a mission, and a sufficient mission for the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the South. Shall a 
parent not provide for his own family ? Shall a 
Church not care for those it has raised up and care 
for them where they are — in the South ? 

If the Methodist Episcopal Church this very instant 
called out of the South every preacher and teacher whom 
it has sent from the North or the West, that would only 
be a fraction and there still would be a large body left 
composed of Southerners who for one or two genera- 
tions have been under its influence and training. If 
the Methodist Episcopal Church technically withdrew 
from the South these Methodist Episcopalians would 
remain in the South rooted in that section. 



140 AMERICAN METHODISM 

"What would become of them ? Where would they 
go ? Who would care for them ? Who would care for 
them in the same way ? 

The Church could not withdraw its workers if it 
would. They are a part of the South and must remain 
with that part of the country. 

The South, which has been benefited by the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, still needs it, for the Methodist 
Episcopal Church still stands for the same essential 
things. 

It still is a non-sectional Church in, of, and for, the 
entire United States of America. Wherever it goes it 
weakens sectionalism and strengthens the idea of na- 
tional oneness and sameness. So it still is helping to 
nationalize the entire country and everywhere to evoke 
and spread the national spirit, and it still is needed 
where there are so many sectional branches of Churches 
of different denominations which sectional branches 
have up to the present time refused to unite with the 
parent bodies. In contrast, the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is in the whole country and of the whole 
country with no North, and no South, and no East 
and no West, recognizing one flag, one nation, and one 
ecclesiasticism covering the whole land. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church is now needed in 
the South to care for the increasing immigration com- 
ing into the Southland. One of the phenomenal facts 
of migration to-day is the drift towards the South. 
Not only is Northern capital stimulating and strength- 
ening Southern industries, but Northern people also are 
moving into the Southern section, and the immigration 
into the South is much greater than that which is go- 
ing into the West. 



PRESENT DUTY IN SOUTH 141 

All this is helping to make the New South, and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has a special mission in 
and for this New South. It is needed to care for the 
hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the North 
who are pouring, and will continue to pour, into the 
South. To many of them it is their old Church and 
to all it is a non-sectional and nation-wide Church. 

One may ask : Does not the Methodist Episcopal 
Church interfere with the work of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South ? 

Not necessarily. It certainly does not need to inter- 
fere with the Church South any more than a Method- 
ist Episcopal Church would with the Protestant Epis- 
copal or the Presbyterian Church. 

It has, and can find, its own constituency and there 
is more work to do in the South than all the Protestant 
Churches ever have done. The Church South has 
never covered all the territory and reached all the 
people in the South. 

Certainly it has not seriously injured the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, as the latter's very decided 
growth demonstrates. Instead of injuring it has bene- 
fited that Church by its stimulating influence. 

To say the least, the Methodist Episcopal Church is 
not injuring the Church South any more than the 
Church South is injuring the Methodist Episcopal 
Church when it goes into the North and prosecutes 
its work in proximity to the churches of that body, 
and, surely, the Methodist Episcopal Church has as 
much right to go into, and be in, the South, as the 
Church South has to go out of the South and into the 
North, as it has done quite from the beginning. In 
all equity when this has been, and is being, done, there 



142 AMERICAN METHODISM 

can be no rightful objection that can be urged to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church being in the South. 

If a union of the two bodies into one Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America is de- 
sired and desirable, then the Methodist Episcopal 
Church should be in the South to demonstrate the 
need and to hasten the union, or to show whether the 
two bodies are homogeneous and whether the union is 
or is not practicable. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church has been a great 
patriotic and unifying influence in the South because it 
is not sectional, but knows no section and serves the 
whole country. For this among other reasons it is 
needed still. 

It is needed by the native Southerners who are tired 
of sectionalism, who want the old Church which is in 
and for the entire United States of America, and which 
preaches the same old and ever new Gospel of the 
Church and of Christ. 

It is still needed in the South to assist in the general 
religious work of that part of the country, and it is 
helping all Evangelical Protestantism and all the peo- 
ple, doing a work that others are not doing and cannot 
do. We say cannot do mainly because as it is they 
are not now able to meet all the demands upon them. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church can never with- 
draw from the South for that would be a confession 
that it had no right to be everywhere in the country, 
or, in other words, that it is a sectional Church. It has 
never been out of the South and it never can go out of 
the South or any other special section and belie its 
legitimate, title " The Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America." 



PRESENT DUTY IN SOUTH 143 

It cannot make itself a sectional Church for that 
would be an unrighteous self-contradiction, and, so, it 
must remain in every section where it is. In view of 
the facts stated there is no way by which it can honor- 
ably withdraw. Its withdrawal from the South would 
be an inconsistency, a blunder, and a crime. 

It must not go out and it must not be permitted to 
go out. It must remain in some form, in full form as 
it is with this Church in the whole country and the 
whole country within this one Church, or with com- 
bined Methodisms of the whole nation in one Method- 
ist Episcopal Church. 

As things now are it can never go out of the South. 
It can never honorably separate itself from its Southern 
work, for the Methodist Episcopal Church still has a 
mission in the South and a greater one than ever 
before. 



XIV 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL EFFOETS TOWAEDS 
UNION WITH THE CHUECH SOUTH 

THE Methodist Episcopal Church did not make 
the separation that became or resulted in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. It 
wanted the Southern ministers and members to con- 
tinue in the Methodist Episcopal Church as they had 
been from the beginning of the Church, but when they 
were determined and decided to take their departure 
from the original Church, its General Conference of 
1844 desired that, if they did carry out their declared 
purpose to separate, they should be treated with " Chris- 
tian kindness " and with " the strictest equity " even 
where they had no legal claim. 

These were gracious words and indicated a friendly 
intention, and, as though reciprocating that form and 
spirit, the Southern Convention of 1845 that dissolved 
the connection with the old Church, and on the very 
day it resolved thus to dissolve its relationship and 
to organize a new denomination called the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, it also " resolved " that 
" cherishing a sincere desire to maintain Christian 
union and fraternal intercourse with the Church North," 
it would " always be ready, kindly and respectfully, to 
entertain, and duly and carefully consider, any proposi- 
tion or plan having for its object the union of the two 
great bodies, in the North and South, whether such pro- 
posed union be jurisdictional or connectional" 

144 



EFFORTS TOWARDS UNION 145 

Courteously framed as were these phrases, they un- 
fortunately contained a fundamental error. They speak 
of " the Church North " and of " the two great bodies, 
in the North and South." This implied a dividing line 
which not only divided the country into the North and 
the South but also divided the country between the 
two Churches in the same way, whereas the thirteen 
Conferences that proclaimed their withdrawal did not 
embrace all the South, and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, even by actual occupancy, was not limited to 
what was termed the North, but extended into the 
South. 

Further, the Methodist Episcopal Church was not the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, North. That never was 
its legal title. Even in the document that some have 
incorrectly called the " Plan of Separation," and which 
the organizing convention, which made the Church 
South, called " the provisional plan of separation," the 
General Conference of 1844 never called the Methodist 
Episcopal Church " the Church North " or the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, North, though it does mention 
the threatened possibility of "the Church South," 
"The Southern Church," and "the Church in the 
South." 

On the contrary in contrast it always speaks of " the 
Methodist Episcopal Church " repeating that old title 
over and over again, without change, because there was 
no change in the old Church which was to go on down 
through the generations with the unchanged title be- 
cause it was the unchanged original Church. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was the " Church 
South," the intention being to make it " the Southern 
Church " to be in and for " the South," and, hence, the 



146 AMERICAN METHODISM 

limiting title was voluntarily chosen, while the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church still continued to be the same 
Methodist Episcopal Church without any geographical 
limitation of North, or East, or West in its title. 

Notwithstanding this attempt to put a sectional 
limitation on the Methodist Episcopal Church, which 
the facts did not justify, nevertheless, the kindly ex- 
pressions, first of " a sincere desire to maintain Chris- 
tian union and fraternal intercourse," and, second, the 
promise " to entertain and duly and carefully consider 
any proposition or plan having for its object the union 
of the two great bodies/' would lead one to infer that 
there was a possibility of reunion. 

Though the phrasing seems to put the burden and 
responsibility of making the proposition or devising the 
plan on the Methodist Episcopal Church out of which 
the organizers of the Church South had gone, never- 
theless such language was calculated to excite hope 
that the outgoing Church might come back and be of 
the one Methodist Episcopal Church. 

But the institution of human slavery, that had so 
much to do with the withdrawal of those who made 
up the Church South, made what seemed to be an 
impassable barrier, and remained such as long as it 
continued to exist. 

As long as slavery had such great influence, directly 
or indirectly, in what was called the slave section, no 
voice for ecclesiastical union could come from that 
locality, and no voice from the free section would be 
heard. 

Time and other forces had to work until the possible 
condition was created. They did work and worked 
more rapidly than might have been anticipated. In 



EFFORTS TOWARDS UNION 147 

less than a score of years human slavery had ceased to 
be in the fair land of the South. Shackles had been 
broken and barriers had been removed. The time of 
possibilities had arrived and now it would seem that a 
voice for fraternity and union might speak and be heard. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church was the first to 
make a move towards union. Conditions prior to the 
Civil War had made it impracticable to bring about 
either fraternity or union during that period, but, as 
soon as the war was over, representatives of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church made fraternal advances 
and initiated proposals for unification. 

Almost immediately after the close of the Civil War, 
in connection with which came the destruction of slavery, 
namely in the month of June, 1865, the bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church issued a declaration as to 
the matter of union between their Church and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

In this utterance the Methodist Episcopal bishops 
said " that the great cause (slavery) which led to the 
organization of the Wesleyan Methodists (in the 
Northern States) on the one hand, and of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, South, on the other, had ceased 
to exist, and they hoped the day was not far distant 
when these Methodist bodies might become one family 
again," or "they hoped the day was not far distant 
when these Methodist families might become one family 
again." 

So as long ago as 1865 the bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church led in a movement looking towards 
a union of the two bodies. 

Nothing, however, came of that deliverance to en- 
courage those who proffered the olive branch of 



148 AMERICAN METHODISM 

ecclesiastical peace, but the bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, did take cognizance of the 
utterance of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

Under date of August IT, 1865, the bishops of the 
Church South referred to the meeting of the Method- 
ist Episcopal bishops and the missionary secretaries of 
this Church, which had been held at Erie, Pennsylvania, 
in June, 1865, and, commenting on their suggestion of 
union, the Church South bishops made a counter 
declaration. 

In it they said: "Their bishops and missionary 
secretaries held a meeting in June, the proceedings of 
which, embracing this subject, have been published by 
order. Under these circumstances, some allusion to it 
may be proper for us." 

Then, after making certain allegations against the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, for example, "that a 
large proportion, if not a majority, of Northern 
Methodists have become incurably radical. They 
teach for doctrine the commandments of men. They 
preach another G-ospel," they say in their response: 
" we can anticipate no good result from even entertain- 
ing the subject of reunion with them. Fidelity to 
what seems our providential mission requires that we 
preserve our Church, in all its vigor and integrity, free 
from entangling alliances with those whose notions of 
philanthropy and politics and social economy are 
liable to give an ever-varying complexion to their 
theology. Let us abide in our lot, and be true to our 
calling, doing what we can to spread Scriptural holiness 
through these lands, and to oppose the tide of fanaticism 
which threatens their overflow." 



EFFOETS TOWARDS UNION 149 

Such a response was not very hopeful for union, but 
the Methodist Episcopal Church did not abandon its 
advances in that direction. The very next year other 
attempts were made. 

In the month of April, 1866, the first time since the 
beginning of the Civil War, the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, convened. In 
the early part of that month, the New York East Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church was in 
session in the city of Brooklyn. At the instance of 
the Reverend Dr. D. D. Whedon, the editor of the 
Methodist Quarterly jReview, this Conference, by a vote 
of eighty to eight, ordered the following fraternal ex- 
pression to be telegraphed to the General Conference 
of the Church South : 

" W7iereas, the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, is now in session in the city 
of New Orleans, therefore, 

" JResolved, That we, the New York East Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, hereby present to 
that venerable representative body our Christian salu- 
tations, and cordially invite them, together with us, to 
make next Sabbath, April 8, 1866, a day of special 
prayer, both in private and in public congregations, for 
the peace and unity of heart of our common country, 
and for the full restoration of Christian sympathy and 
love between the different Churches, and, especially, 
between the different branches of Methodism within 
this nation; and upon the receipt of an acceptable 
affirmative reply, this concert of prayer will be con- 
sidered by this Conference as adopted." 

This dispatch was sent on Thursday, April 5th, but 
was not presented to the Church South General Con- 



150 AMERICAN METHODISM 

ference until noon, on Saturday, the 7th. To the sug- 
gestion of the New York East Conference the General 
Conference of the Church South cordially agreed by 
a rising vote, and the action was ordered to be tele- 
graphed. Unfortunately the telegram in response was 
not received by the secretary of the New York East 
Conference until about half-past ten o'clock on Satur- 
day night, April 7th, when, of course, the Annual Con- 
ference was not in session. The secretary hastened, 
however, to notify the Churches in New York and 
Brooklyn. 

On the 11th of April, 1866, Dr. John P. Newman, 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and three others, 
who were in New Orleans, telegraphed to Bishop 
Ames, who was presiding over the New York Confer- 
ence, then in session : " Have New York Conference 
request Southern General Conference to appoint com- 
missioners, one from each of their Annual Conferences, 
to confer with like commissioners, appointed by bench 
of bishops, one from each of your Annual Conferences, 
in May, at Washington, to agree on a reunion of the 
Churches this Centenary year of Methodism, subject to 
the approval of your General Conference." 

Following this suggestion, the very next day, Thurs- 
day, the 12th, the New York Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church sent to the General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, this tele- 
gram : 

" We should express the hope, desire, and expectation 
that, at no distant day, the bodies unhappily severed 
will be united and suggest the propriety of your body 
providing a conference with a commission that may be 
appointed, by our bishops, with reference to reunion, 



EFFORTS TOWARDS UNION 151 

subject to the action of our General Conference, May, 
1868, thus crowning our glorious Centenary." 

This telegram was presented to the Southern Gen- 
eral Conference on Saturday, the 14th, about the close 
of the day's session. It was then referred to the Col- 
lege of Bishops. On the 29th of April, eleven days 
after the adjournment of the New York Annual Con- 
ference, the secretary of the General Conference of the 
Church South sent the following to the secretary of 
the New York Conference : 

" The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, heartily reciprocates the kind expres- 
sions of the New York Annual Conference, but can- 
not consent to appoint commissioners on the plan pro- 
posed." 

These were well-meant efforts from those in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church to bring about a fellow- 
ship between the two Churches and also to secure a 
Conference between representatives of the two bodies 
in the interest of union, but in this matter they failed. 

In the same General Conference of 1866 the bishops 
of the Church South in their episcopal address said : 
" In respect to the separate and distinct organization of 
our Church, no reasons have appeared to alter our 
views as expressed in August last." 

Thus they reiterated their opposition to " even enter- 
taining the subject of reunion" with the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 



XV 

PEOPOSED UNION BETWEEN THE CHUECH 

SOUTH AND THE METHODIST PEOTES- 

TANT CHUECH 

THOUGH in 1866 the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, rejected in most positive 
terms the advances towards union made by 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, yet the General Con- 
ference of the Church South, meeting that very year, 
though its bishops formally said, referring to the ad- 
vances from the Methodist Episcopal Church, that " In 
respect to the separate and distinct organization of our 
Church, no reasons have appeared to alter our views as 
expressed in August last," notwithstanding all this, the 
Southern General Conference in the same month pro- 
posed union with the Methodist Protestant Church as 
though discriminating against the Methodist Episcopal 
Church at that time. 

At that time the Methodist Protestants in General 
Convention were in session in the city of Washiugton, 
District of Columbia. 

On May 3, 1866, the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, adopted the fol- 
lowing : 

" fiesolwed, That a commission, consisting of five 
members of this body and two bishops, be appointed to 
confer with a commission, if one be appointed from 
the General Conference of the Methodist Protestant 

152 



SOUTH AND METHODIST PROTESTANTS 153 

Church, now in session in Georgetown, District of Co- 
lumbia, on the subject of a union between the Method- 
ist Protestant Church and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, with power to settle the union." 

Bishop McTyeire of the Church South sent a docu- 
ment, which was received by the Methodist Protestant 
General Conference on the eighth day of its session 
which referred to the action of the Church South Gen- 
eral Conference suggesting that " a commission be ap- 
pointed to confer with a similar one from your Confer- 
ence on the subject of union between the two Churches 
and with powers to conclude the terms of union, if it 
can be agreed upon," and Bishop McTyeire's communi- 
cation also said " as several prominent brethren of the 
Methodist Protestant Church had suggested." 

On this Dr. Edward J. Drinkhouse, in his " History 
of Methodist Reform," which is a history of the Meth- 
odist Protestant Church, Yol. II, p. 468, says: "It 
seems that the Alabama and the Mississippi Confer- 
ences of the Church, at their previous sessions, had 
passed such resolutions of invitation ; thus taking an 
initiative which, in its consummation, finally dis- 
regarded the theory of Mutual Rights and General 
Conference authority." 

A committee of the Methodist Protestant General 
Conference reported that, " In the opinion of your com- 
mittee, this General Conference has not authority to 
act in the premises, this power being alone with the 
people ; but the commission they appointed are recom- 
mended and invited to confer with the Convention to 
be called for Montgomery in 1867, or, in default, the 
General Conference of the Church in May, 1870." 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in its Gen- 



154: AMERICAN METHODISM 

eral Conference, appointed the following commission- 
ers to treat with similar commissioners if such be ap- 
pointed by the Methodist Protestant Conference, 
namely: Bishops Pierce and McTyeire, and the Rev- 
erends Charles F. Deems, J. E. Evans, S. Register, 
1ST. Head, and L. M. Lee. 

The action of the General Conference of the Church 
South, having been communicated to the Conference of 
the Methodist Protestant Church, that body took 
reciprocal action and appointed the following commis- 
sioners : 

From Maryland, Rev. S. B. Southerland, L. J. Cox, 
Jr. ; from Virginia, Rev. J. G. Whitfield, C. W. But- 
ton ; from North Carolina, Rev. W. H. Wills, G. J. 
Cherry; from Tennessee, Rev. B. F. Duggan; from 
Georgia, Rev. F. H. M. Henderson, J. Bass ; from 
Alabama, Rev. F. L. B. Shaver, P. T. Graves ; from 
Mississippi, Rev. P. H. Napier, P. Loper; and from 
North Mississippi, Rev. A. A. Houstan, W. R. Mont- 
gomery. 

The two commissions convened on the 8th of May, 
1867, at Montgomery, Alabama, and, on assembling, 
took some time for free consultation and an interchange 
of friendly expressions. 

Bishop McTyeire declared that nothing essential 
separated the two Churches at that time and expressed 
the hope that they would wed and be one family ; 
Dr. L. M. Lee said the separation in 1828 was a sad 
day for Methodism and that he had been laboring for a 
reunion ; and the Rev. J. E. Evans coincided with what 
his colleagues had said and hoped the union would be 
consummated. 

The Methodist Protestant Commissioners warmly 



SOUTH AND METHODIST PROTESTANTS 155 

welcomed the representatives of the Church South, and 
agreed with them that a visible union of the two 
branches of Methodism was desirable, providing such a. 
union could be on terms which were mutually agreeable. 

Then came the formal propositions and the presenta- 
tion of conditions. 

The commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, presented the following proposition : 

"We propose a formal and corporate union of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Methodist 
Protestant Church. The separation originally took 
place because lay representation was denied. The 
principle being now conceded and incorporated into 
the economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
we think there is no insuperable bar to such union of 
the two bodies respectfully represented by us. 

" We propose a union with your ministers, itinerant 
and local, and your members, each in their several re- 
lations, and entitled to all the rights and privileges 
common to our own ministers and members, under the 
Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." 

The commissioners of the Methodist Protestant 
Church responded in a statement of " Terms of Union," 
containing fifteen stipulations : 

" 1. Strike out of the Church name the word South. 

" 2. If Episcopal be retained in the name, Protestant 
to be incorporated. 

" 3. Dispense with the presiding eldership. 

" 4. Have as many bishops as annual conferences. 

" 5. In the selection of new bishops, what are now 
our annual conferences shall have the privilege of nom- 
inating from their present members their first bishops, 
and the General Conference shall elect said nominees, 



156 AMERICAN METHODISM 

" 6. Itinerant ministers to have the right of appeal 
from the stationing power. 

"7. Maryland Conference, in the event of union, 
to be allowed to decide upon its own name, ministerial 
membership, and boundaries be not extended farther 
south than the states of Maryland and Delaware, 
and the District of Columbia and the station in 
Alexandria. 

" 8. Our system of trial of accused ministers and 
members, or its equivalent. 

" 9. No minister to be transferred from one Con- 
ference to another without his own consent and the 
consent of the Conference to which he is transferred. 

" 10. Local preachers and ministers to be put upon 
a par with itinerant preachers and ministers, in regard 
to eligibility to orders. 

"11. Local ministers to be alike eligible with itin- 
erant ministers to a seat in the General Conference. 

" 12. Each station, circuit, and mission to be al- 
lowed one delegate to the Annual Conference ; in the 
former to be elected by the male members ; in the two 
latter, by the quarterly conference. 

" 13. No veto power to be conceded to the bishops. 

" 14. Incorporate in the Discipline the following 
(Art. YIII, Sec. 5) : The ministry and laymen shall 
deliberate in one body ; but if, upon the final passage 
of any question, it be required by three members, the 
ministers and laymen shall vote separately, and the 
concurrence of a majority of both classes of represent- 
atives shall be necessary to constitute a vote of the 
Conference. A similar regulation shall be observed in 
the Annual Conference. 

" 15. In the Annual Conference the laity shall have 



SOUTH AND METHODIST PKOTESTANTS 15T 

the right to participate in all the business, except such 
as relates to the trial of ministers and preachers." 

Eeferring to the Methodist Protestant Convention of 
1867, Doctor Drinkhouse says: "The overshadowing 
subject occupying the attention of the convention was 
the proposal from the Church South already cited. 
The Committee of Conference held numerous inter- 
views with the commissioners of that Church, and the 
more they conferred the less the brethren seemed to 
be able to understand the interpretation placed upon 
the action of the Church South as made by the com- 
missioners present. It slowly dawned upon them, 
however, after the first answer was made to their 
proposal. It covered fifteen points, made upon the 
supposition that the commissioners were empowered to 
' settle terms of union. . . .' 

" It is an open secret that several of these points 
were made by brethren opposed to the ' Union ' alto- 
gether — riders to kill the bill." 

The next day the two commissions met together, and 
the commissioners from the Church South replied in 
order to the terms proposed. 

They said the word South could be eliminated from the 
title of the Church, but that to introduce the word 
Protestant in the name was unnecessary; that the 
presiding eldership was a matter requiring General 
Conference action ; that there was a tendency in the 
Church to have a larger number of bishops; that 
stipulations as to electing bishops nominated by an An- 
nual Conference was beyond the power of the com- 
missioners of the Church South; that appeals from 
pastoral assignments by the appointing power would 
impair the effective supply of pastors ; that it is safest 



158 AMERICAN METHODISM 

to leave the determination of the boundaries of the 
Maryland Annual Conference with the General Con- 
ference ; that as to the matter of trials the two 
Churches had about the same system; that the 
tendency was to put itinerant and local preachers upon 
a par as to their eligibility for orders ; that already a 
fair ratio of representation in the General Conference is 
allowed local preachers ; that a too numerous represen- 
tation in the General Conference would be cumber- 
some ; that veto power by the bishops was a mooted 
question and was not under the control of the commis- 
sioners from the Church South ; that a division of the 
vote in the General Conference was already provided 
for on a call of one-fifth, but that such a measure in the 
Annual Conference might embarrass its proceedings ; 
and that the right of the laity to vote on all questions 
might safely rest with the General Conference. 

This was the substance of the reply to the response 
of the commissioners of the Methodist Protestant 
Church by the representatives of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South. 

Doctor Drinkhouse, commenting on this in his his- 
tory, remarks that " The ' ecclesiastical finesse ' devel- 
oped on both sides. The commissioners made reply in 
order. And now it became clear even to hazy vision 
that what was proposed was not ' Union,' but Absorp- 
tion. The ministers and officials would be received 
into the Church South and the members would be re- 
ceived also ; but not a vanishing point was to be left of 
the Methodist Protestant Church as such. 

"And yet over the reply which made this fact 
manifest the brethren higgled and disputed and took 
votes by ayes and nays and entered upon the journal 



SOUTH AND METHODIST PROTESTANTS 159 

explanations of their votes, and a number of them 
finally uttered a protest against the whole farcical 
business. The brethren who in their individual and 
conferential capacity had presumed to speak for the 
whole Church in their letters and personal inter- 
views with the bishops, etc., found themselves in 
an embarrassing position ; they could not deliver the 
goods." 

The Methodist Protestant General Convention then 
sitting in Montgomery considered three reports on this 
subject. The first contained the following : 

" Besolved, That the whole subject be referred for 
final action to our several Annual Conferences, and 
that the president thereof be requested to announce the 
results to the commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, expressing the hope that the Confer- 
ences may act as a unit." 

The second report was from a minority, and it rec- 
ommended the acceptance of the terms proposed by 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, "as liberal, 
hopeful, and indicative of an early affirmation of all 
the points of difference, and therefore we accept them 
and recommend to our Annual Conferences action in 
harmony with acceptance." 

The third report was from a minority of one. In 
dissenting from the majority report, it says it " does 
not agree to abide the decision of the Conferences with- 
out the concurrence of at least a majority of the 
several Annual Conferences." 

Finally the convention decided : 

" That the convention take no decisive action at this 
time, but that the whole subject be held in abeyance 
and under advisement by the several Annual Confer- 



160 AMERICAN METHODISM 

ences, calmly awaiting the development and indications 
of Providence." 

Doctor Drinkhouse remarks that " The commissioners 
of the Church South took their formal leave with 
courteous greetings and resolves, the hand-in-glove 
brethren relieving the disgust these commissioners 
could not altogether disguise, as much as possible. 
And so ended a fiasco as notable as that of the Non- 
Episcopal Union Convention of the brethren North and 
West, but attended with much more diastrous results. 
It is but fair to state that literally the bishops were be- 
guiled into the part they took by the resolves of the 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Yirginia Conferences. The 
fifteen points presented were never submitted by them 
to their Annual Conferences, as suggested, and the 
' Union ' of the two Churches was abandoned mutually. 
They soon began the work of ' taking into their Church 9 
the preachers and people individually, and as Annual 
Conferences piecemeal, but always at the invitation of 
those who had predetermined to unite with them." 

The negotiations proved futile and the project utterly 
failed, and to this day the Methodist Protestant Church 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, never have 
united. 

But the remarkable fact that stands out most prom- 
inently in this connection is that in the very year it 
proposed union with the Methodist Protestant Church, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, rejected the ad- 
vances towards union made by the representatives of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



XVI 
THE FOKMATION OF THE METHODIST CHUECH 

AS early as 1859 there was an initiative sugges- 
tion for the consolidation of the separated 
section of the Methodist Protestants in the 
North and West with the Wesleyan Connection of 
America. 

In 1864, Dr. Hiram Mattison, who had withdrawn 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church and formed 
an independent church in the city of New York, 
in conjunction with representatives of other inde- 
pendent Methodist Churches, appointed a committee 
to confer with other non-Episcopal Methodists, with a 
view to effecting a union of all bodies coming under 
that head. 

When the Civil War ended the proposition gained 
in popular favor. As Doctor Drinkhouse remarks : 
" ' Union ' was in the air among Methodists in this 
epoch. All of them had suffered losses from the 
ravages of the war, and seemed to be casting about to 
recoup themselves out of each other. . . . The 
non-Episcopal Methodists of the North and West 
would come together; yes, there were no differences 
among them to keep them apart, and they loved each 
other so dearly they could not keep from ecclesiastical 
wedlock." 

A convention of non-Episcopal Methodists met and 
recommended the calling of a delegated assembly or 

161 



162 AMERICAN METHODISM 

convention to meet in the month of May, 1866, in the 
city of Cincinnati, Ohio, which convention would have 
power to fix the basis of union and to determine the 
method of bringing about the said union. 

In the interim Dr. Hiram Mattison returned to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. However, the Conven- 
tion was held in Cincinnati, May 9-16, 1866. 

When " the non-Episcopal Methodist Convention " 
was organized it was found that the majority was 
composed of the separated Methodist Protestants in 
the North and West, including West Yirginia. From 
the Northern and Western Methodists came one hun- 
dred and seven delegates, from the Wesleyan Method- 
ist Connection, twenty-eight, and four delegates from 
three independent churches, making a total of one hun- 
dred and thirty-nine. In. addition the names of a con- 
siderable number of honorary members were entered. 
No representatives were sent by the Free Methodists. 
One of the Wesleyans was elected the permanent 
president. 

On the second day the Committee on Basis of Union 
presented certain Elementary Principles which were 
essentially those of the Methodist Protestant Church 
slightly modified, which principles were unanimously 
adopted. 

In regard to the title of the new and combined 
Church there was not the same unanimity. Two titles 
were proposed. The delegates from the Wesleyan 
Connection wanted the new name to be the " United 
Methodist Church," while the representatives from the 
separated Methodist Protestant body wanted it called 
" The Methodist Church." Finally the latter title was 
adopted by a vote of one hundred and seven to twenty- 



FOEMATION OF METHODIST CHUKCH 163 

four, and the new ecclesiastical combination was started 
on its career as " The Methodist Church," the first and 
only Methodistic body to carry that as its legal title. 

One subject brought for the consideration of the Con- 
vention was in regard to " secret oath-bound societies." 
This was not only presented but by some it was 
strongly urged that something be incorporated in the 
church law against membership in such organizations. 
The matter gave much trouble, but the Convention re- 
fused to make the prohibition a part of the corporate 
law of the new Church, and passed an act in which the 
preamble declared that " Whereas this Convention has 
left all moral questions with the local churches, recog- 
nizing their right to determine their own tests of 
membership," etc., it would not be proper for the 
Convention to pass a law on such a matter. 

In fact it was essentially the same avoidance of the 
issue as the old Methodist Protestant Church in its 
General Conferences put in their decisions in reference 
to slaveholding by its ministers and members, and 
somewhat like the decisions of certain General Con- 
ferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church on the 
slavery question in a certain stormy period, when it 
pointed to the peculiar civil laws of some states. 

A Constitution which was very similar to the Con- 
stitution of the Methodist Protestant Church, as re- 
vised by the Convention of 1858, was adopted, and a 
committee was appointed to prepare a Book of Dis- 
cipline to harmonize with the Constitution just agreed 
upon, which committee was ordered to report to the 
first General Conference of " The Methodist Church," 
to be held in Cleveland, Ohio, on the third Wednesday 
in the month of May, 1867. 



164 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Thus the new non-Episcopal " Methodist Church " 
was formed and moved out into the future. 

One year later, in May, 1867, and in the city of 
Cleveland, the first General Conference of " The 
Methodist Church " convened, and continued in session 
from the fifteenth to the twenty-second day inclusive. 

Out of eighty-six elected representatives, twenty -five 
were absent, and only four ministers and three laymen 
of the Wesleyan Connection were officially present. 
Doctor Drinkhouse observes that " The whole denom- 
ination had repudiated the Union. . . . Less 
than a dozen of their ministers came to the Methodist 
Church, and, as already recorded, a number of their 
leading men returned to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church." 

The new form of Discipline, after some amendment, 
was adopted. One proposition which was accepted 
read as follows : 

" Each Annual Conference respectively shall have 
power to make its own rules and regulations in regard 
to stationing its ministers and preachers, provided it 
shall make no rule inconsistent with the Constitution of 
the Methodist Church." 

The statistics seem to show a membership of nearly 
50,000, but the union appeared to be one of form rather 
than fact, as Joel Martin, in his " Wesleyan Manual ; or 
History of Wesleyan Methodism," says : " In the final 
outcome the Methodist Protestants generally went into 
the new organizatian which took the name of the 
' Methodist Church,' while the Wesleyan Methodists 
pretty generally remained out of it and maintained 
their own denominational identity." 



XVII 

THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHUECH EENEWS 

ITS PEOFFEE OF UNION WITH THE CHUECH 

SOUTH AND MAKES ADVANCES 

TOWAEDS OTHEE BODIES 

ONCE again, namely, in 1869, at their regular 
Episcopal Conference, held at Meadville, 
Pennsylvania, the Methodist Episcopal bishops 
decided to make another effort for union, and deputed 
two of their number, namely, Bishops Morris and 
Janes, to meet the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, at their regular meeting to be held a 
few weeks later, and with them to confer concerning 
" methods of reunion." 

With these deputies the bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church sent a written communication, in 
which they said : 

" Dear Brethren, — It seems to us, that as the divi- 
sion of those Churches of our country which are of 
like faith and order has been productive of evil, so the 
reunion of them would be productive of good. As the 
main cause of separation has been removed, so has the 
chief obstacle to restoration. 

" It is fitting that the Methodist Church, which be- 
gan the disunion, should not be the last to achieve the 
reunion, . . . which both the love of country and 
of religion invoke, and which the providence of God 
seems to render inevitable at no distant day. 

165 



166 AMERICAN METHODISM 

" We are aware that there are difficulties in the way. 
. . . "We have, therefore, deputed our colleagues, 
Morris and Janes, to confer with you, alike as to the 
propriety, practicability, and methods of reunion, 
. . . to see the several parts united upon a founda- 
tion honorable to all, stable as truth, and harmonious 
with the fundamental law of religion." 

This did not bring a favorable response. Comment- 
ing on this episode, the Rev. John H. Brunner, D. D., a 
minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and 
President of Hiwassee College, East Tennessee, — ob- 
serves that " The message was delivered. Well said, 
and well done ! But union was the last thing these 
Southern bishops wished to talk about. . . . Here 
was a pivotal point in history. Emphatically this was 
a time for concerting c methods ' to remove the diffi- 
culties between the two bodies. But the overtures 
contained too much, and that ' much ' was union." 

Bishop Matthew Simpson, in his "Cyclopedia of 
Methodism," says : " In April, 1869, the bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church appointed Bishops Janes 
and Simpson to visit and confer with the bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, who met in St. 
Louis the next month. The visit was made and a 
friendly correspondence ensued, but without any defi- 
nite action." 

Doctor Myers, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, in his book entitled " The Disruption of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church," gives an account of this 
interview. He says : 

"In 1869 the Southern bishops met in St. Louis, 
where they were unexpectedly visited by Bishops Janes 
and Simpson, commissioned by the Episcopal College of 



PROFFERS OF UNION RENEWED 167 

the Methodist Episcopal Church to bear fraternal 
greetings. They were self -moved to do this, believing 
that, as ' chief pastors,' it became them to suggest a re- 
union of the two Churches. They were received with 
the utmost respect, and their communication answered 
courteously but candidly. The Southern bishops did 
not conceive c reunion ' the first question to be con- 
sidered ; it must be preceded by the establishment of 
fraternal feelings and relations between the two 
Churches. They cited the final words of Doctor 
Pierce in 1848, which, in 1850, had been adopted as the 
language of the Church South. 

"'If the offer of fraternal relations is ever made 
upon the basis of the Plan of Separation of 1844, the 
Church South will cordially entertain the proposition,' 
Doctor Pierce wrote ; and they add, ' You cannot ex- 
pect us to say less than this, that the words of our rejected 
delegate are our words.' And again : ' Allow us, in 
all kindness, brethren, to remind you, and to keep the 
important fact of history prominent, that we separated 
from you in no sense in which you did not separate 
from us. The separation was by compact, and mutual, 
and nearer approaches to each other can be conducted, 
with hope of successful issue, only on this basis.' 

" They also called attention ' to the conduct of some 
of the missionaries and agents sent into ' the South, 
and to their ' course in taking possession of some of our 
houses of worship ; ' and granting it not impossible 
'that our own people may not have been in every 
instance without blame towards you,' they add : ' If 
any offenses against the law of love, committed by 
those under our appointment, any aggressions upon 
your just privileges and rights, are properly represented 



168 AMERICAN METHODISM 

to us, we shall stand ready, by all the authority and 
influence we have, to restrain and correct them.' " 

Doctor Myers then remarks : " There was no re- 
sponse." 

Just what he intends by this is not evident. If he 
means that then and afterwards the Methodist Epis- 
copal bishops made no reply but received the statement 
in silence, such an assertion seems improbable and does 
not harmonize with Bishop Simpson's remark that " a 
friendly correspondence ensued." 

For the Church South bishops to say to their 
brother bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
1869 "that we separated from you in no sense in 
which you did not separate from us " was rhetorical 
and striking in its form, but it was not an accurate 
statement. It is an admission that they of the South 
did separate but it is not evidence that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church separated from the Church South. 
That is merely an assertion. 

That the founders of the Church South did the 
separating is a plain fact proven by their own records. 
The representatives of the thirteen Southern Con- 
ferences, meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, in May, 
1845, formally declared that they then and there dis- 
solved their connection with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, as the resolution read, we " do solemnly de- 
clare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said 
Annual Conferences (in the slaveholding states), by the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
entirely dissolved," " and are constituted a separate 
ecclesiastical connexion." 

At that time the General Conference of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church was not in session, but by its ad- 



PROFFERS OF UNION RENEWED 169 

journment had gone out of existence about a year 
before, so the expression was equivalent to saying that 
these Southern Conferences withdrew from the jurisdic- 
tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and their use 
of the title of the denomination shows that they recog- 
nized the fact that the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
in existence at that time and that it remained in exist- 
ence after they declared their relation dissolved. They 
voted their connection with it dissolved, and, so, 
separated from it, but the old Church remained the 
same Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States 
of America. 

That was the only dissolution that took place. The 
Southern Convention did the separating, but the 
Methodist Episcopal Church never went into an 
organizing convention like the delegates from "the 
slaveholding states " to organize or reorganize itself, 
or voted to dissolve its connection with the Church 
South. It was, therefore, inaccurate for the bishops of 
the latter Church to say to the bishops of the Continu- 
ing Methodist Episcopal Church that the Church 
South separated from the old Church in no sense in 
which the Methodist Episcopal Church did not separate 
from it. The dissolving was by one side and by one 
side only. 

The remark in question was written about twenty-five 
years after the separation by the Southern Conferences 
and the intervening years had been a period of intense 
feeling, and strenuous events may have clouded the 
memory and affected the judgment, while with the ex- 
citement still fresh it was difficult to see facts in their 
true perspective. 

Nothing daunted, the bishops of the Methodist 



170 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Episcopal Church persisted in their efforts to bring the 
two Churches together. 

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, in 1868, had considered the question of union 
between Methodist Churches. From the General Con- 
ference of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 
then in session, had come a telegram asking " whether 
a deputation from that body, bearing proposals for 
fraternization and union, would be received." Upon the 
announcement, the Eeverend Dr. Daniel Curry moved 
" That we will cordially welcome a delegation from the 
General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal 
Zion Church for consultation and ultimate union of that 
Church with our own," and this was adopted. 

The next day a telegram was received from the 
General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal 
Church, "giving information that a committee from 
that body, bearing proposals of affiliation and union, 
would be sent to this General Conference," and a com- 
mittee of reception was appointed. 

The same day came a memorial signed by eight 
clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church " pray- 
ing this General Conference to appoint a commission 
of Bishops and Clergy, to meet a similar commission to 
be appointed by the General Convention of their Church, 
with reference to a union of the two Churches in one 
communion." 

This was referred to a special committee. 

A committee was appointed " to receive, consider 
and report upon, to this Conference, any proposals" 
from the two African Churches " for union with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church." 

When the report of the committee to confer with 



PROFFERS OF UNION RENEWED 171 

the delegate from the African Methodist Episcopal 
Zion Church was under consideration, it was moved 
that, in case of union, the said Church " shall be en- 
titled to a pro rata representation in the Episcopal 
Board of the Methodist Episcopal Church" but this 
was laid on the table. The Conference favorably en- 
tertained the proposition for union but adopted a refer- 
ence to a joint commission to report to the next Gen- 
eral Conference. 

On motion of Gilbert Haven it was " fiesolved, That 
the Commission ordered by the General Conference to 
confer with a like Commission from the African Meth- 
odist Episcopal Zion Church, to arrange for the union of 
that body with our own, be also empowered to treat 
with a similar Commission from any other Methodist 
Church that may desire a like union." 

This was broad enough to cover every denomination 
in the Methodistic family and was so intended. 

In regard to the request of the Protestant Episcopal 
clergyman it was ordered " That a committee of seven 
be appointed, who shall constitute a committee of Cor- 
respondence on Church Union, who shall reply to the 
letters addressed to this body on this subject, and who 
shall also carry on such other correspondence thereon 
as they may deem necessary, and report to the next 
session of the General Conference." 

Union was in the air and the General Conference 
was making the broadest provisions on that subject. 

The General Conference also voted in favor of a 
joint commission with the Evangelical Association, " to 
confer together and see if they can agree on a basis of 
union, and report their action to the General Confer- 
ence of 1872." 



172 AMERICAN METHODISM 

It is to be observed that not one of these proposed 
unions ever was consummated. 

This General Conference adopted the following: 
" That as the disruption of ecclesiastical and fraternal 
bonds between Christian Churches North and South, 
and especially in our own Church, had the effect largely 
to remove the moral obstructions to the late war and 
precipitate that fearful tragedy, so now also would the 
restoration of fraternal harmony and fellowship among 
all Christian bodies greatly draw together in good-will 
and charity the elements of civil society, and hasten 
the restoration of the Federal Union to its former pro- 
portions, and to more than its former beauty and per- 
fection ; and we do, therefore, earnestly commend to 
all Christians especially to cultivate towards each other, 
and towards all men, the spirit of peace, gentleness, 
forbearance, and of charity and good- will, particularly 
reminding all ministers of our own connection of our 
solemn ordination vow, that * we will maintain and set 
forward, as much as lieth in us, quietness, peace, and 
love among all Christian people, and especially among 
them that are, or shall be, committed to our charge.' " 

This deliverance presented a profound philosophy for 
it is plain that when Christian denominations lost their 
national nature and portions of them became sectional, 
limiting themselves to a special section of the country, 
they weakened the bonds that bound them to the whole 
country and the tendency was to isolate them from the 
rest of the nation. Politically that had a disintegrat- 
ing trend. 

On the other hand denominations having a country- 
wide unity tended to preserve and strengthen national 
unity. Hence " the restoration of fraternal harmony 



PROFFERS OF UNION RENEWED 173 

and fellowship" in the coming together of separated 
members of the same denominational family would 
" greatly draw together in good- will and charity the 
elements of civil society " and strengthen the solidarity 
of the nation. 

The deliverance evidently referred, particularly, to 
the unfortunate withdrawal of the thirteen Southern 
Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1845, 
and with great plainness expressed a strong desire for 
the restoration of denominational unity. It would be 
difficult to conceive of anything more dignified and 
more direct. 

Following up the spirit of union manifested by the 
General Conference of 1868, and under the comprehen- 
sive authority given the Commission which was given 
its commission, "empowered to treat with a similar 
Commission from any other Methodist Church that 
may desire a like union," the Commission decided to 
approach the General Conference of the Church South 
through two representatives, and " the Commission ap- 
pointed by the General Conference requested Bishop 
Janes and Dr. W. L. Harris to attend the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at 
Memphis, in 1870." 

The authorization for the two representatives was 
perfectly legitimate, and, duly empowered, they went 
to the General Conference of the Church South, which 
met in the year just specified. 

The representatives who thus appeared in behalf of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church were conspicuous men. 
One was a bishop and later the other became a bishop. 
Dr. William L. Harris was the secretary of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal General Conference and at the General 



174 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Conference of 1868 had been elected First Assistant 
Corresponding Secretary of the Missionary Society. 

Bishop Edmund S. Janes in a sense seemed to link 
the two Churches together, for he had been elected to 
the Episcopate in the General Conference of 1844, and 
largely by Southern votes. 

These representatives of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church presented a written paper to the General Con- 
ference of the Church South, in which they said : 

" There are now no sufficient reasons why a union 
may not be effected on terms equally honorable to all ; 
. . . appoint a similar commission to meet with us 
previous to our next General Conference. . . . 

" We are, dear brethren, yours in Christ Jesus." 

After the communication had been read, Bishop 
Janes followed with some explanatory remarks, in 
which he observed : 

" It was the intention, in a dignified and delicate 
manner, to make this communication, and it was not 
intended to be heralded in the papers. . . . The 
act of the General Conference was limited. ... I 
do not understand that we are authorized to take any 
definite action, but to learn what embarrassments are 
in the way of union, and to ascertain in what manner 
union may be effected. I do not think any of us can 
expect that perfect organic union can be effected at 
once without much negotiation ; the history of the past 
five years will not justify us in entertaining such a hope, 
and yet we do believe that the prayer of Christ will be 
heard, and the day come when His people shall be one." 

The result of this fraternal approach was that the 
right of those who appeared in behalf of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church was challenged on the ground that 



PROFFERS OF UNION RENEWED 175 

the representatives were not duly commissioned and 
empowered to treat for union, and the challenge was 
made by the Reverend John C. Keener, D. D., one of 
the leading ministers of the Church South, and he 
challenged the overture " on the ground that the com- 
missioners lacked needful authority." 

The matter was referred to a committee and it 
brought in an adverse report, and the paper adopted 
by this General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, contained the following as its fourth 
resolution : 

" Resolved^ moreover, That if this distinguished com- 
mission were fully clothed with authority to treat with 
us for union, it is the judgment of this Conference that 
the true interests of the Church of Christ require and 
demand the maintenance of our separate and distinct 
organization." 

In 1870, the General Conference of the Church South 
also passed this among other resolutions : 

" Resolved^ That the action of our bishops in their last 
Annual Meeting, in St. Louis, in response to the mes- 
sage from the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, has the full indorsement of this General Con- 
ference, and accurately defines our position in reference 
to any overtures which may proceed from that Church 
having in them an official and proper recognition of 
that body." 

Thus the General Conference of the Church South 
adopted and promulgated the utterances of the bishops 
of that Church made in response to the advances of the 
Methodist Episcopal bishops at the St. Louis meeting. 

Just what that meant we are told by a leading writer 
of the Southern Church. 



176 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Referring to the action of the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1870, Doctor 
Myers, of that Church, in his book entitled " The Dis- 
ruption of the Methodist Episcopal Church," says : 

" Here, then, is the platform on which Southern 
Methodism stands — propounded by Doctor Pierce in 
1848, confirmed by the General Conference in 1850, 
reasserted by the bishops in 1869, and again confirmed 
unanimously in 1870 by a full General Conference of 
lay and clerical delegates ; namely, her foundation, as 
a separate ecclesiastical organization, was, by authority, 
laid in the Plan of Separation ; and this fact must be 
recognized as the basis of a permanent peace and cor- 
dial fraternity." 

That meant that the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, would neither have union nor fraternity with 
the Methodist Episcopal Church until it accepted the 
interpretation the Church South placed upon the acts 
of the General Conference of 1844, and particularly on 
what the South persisted in calling the " Plan of Sepa- 
ration," and to say that the Methodist Episcopal Church 
separated from the Church South just as the Church 
South had separated from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. This was a hard ultimatum for the old Church 
for from the beginning it had denied this interpretation 
and regarded that sort of a double separation as an 
absurdity and contrary to the facts. 

The response to this overture for union made by 
the Methodist Episcopal representatives was a posi- 
tive rejection by this General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, and the emphatic decla- 
ration " that the true interests of the Church of Christ 
[not merely of the Church South, but the whole of 



PROFFERS OF UNION RENEWED 177 

" the Church of Christ "] require and demand the main- 
tenance of our separate and distinct organization," and 
this was years after the close of the Civil War and the 
extinction of slavery, which, therefore, could no longer 
be a live issue. 

Commenting on this, the Church South author, Doc- 
tor Brunner, says : " The issue was joined ; the North- 
ern Church for union • the Southern against it ! John 
Christian Keener, having championed the Southern 
view, was made a bishop on the spot." 

Summarizing these events we find : 

The bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
1865, had publicly pronounced in favor of the union of 
their Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and this action evoked the reply from the bishops of the 
latter Church that they could " anticipate no good re- 
sult from even entertaining the subject of reunion." 

In 1866 two great Annual Conferences of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, namely, the New York East 
and the New York, communicated with the General 
Conference of the Church South, and while that body 
agreed to a day of prayer it declined to accept the sug- 
gestion to create a commission on the subject of the 
union of the Churches, but reiterated their adherence 
to their " separate and distinct organization." 

In 1869 the Methodist Episcopal bishops designated 
two of their number to meet the bishops of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, for the purpose of con- 
ferring " as to the propriety, practicability, and methods 
of reunion," but it resulted in failure. 

The next year, 1870, the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, convened and to it 
the Commission of the General Conference of the 



178 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Methodist Episcopal Church sent a deputation of two 
honored men, which deputation proposed the union of 
the two Churches and the appointment of commissions 
of Conference. The proffer was declined, the author- 
ity of the deputation was denied, and the Conference 
declared in favor of maintaining the "separate and 
distinct organization." 

Thus all these varied and continuous efforts by 
various parties, speaking for the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in favor of the union of two Churches, seemed 
to be fruitless and to have resulted in absolute failure. 

No attempt will be made to deny the right of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to remain a " sep- 
arate and distinct organization " if it so desired. On 
the other hand no one can deny the earnestness and 
sincerity of those who undertook to speak for the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in the effort for union. 

The aggregate result of the attempts was enough to 
discourage average mortals, but the leaders of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church did not despair. 



XVIII 
A NEW COLOKED CHUKCH 

IN the General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, in 1866, when the body de- 
clined the advances towards union made by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and yet opened negotia- 
tions looking towards union with the Methodist Prot- 
estant Church, it also adopted measures to prepare for 
the organization of the colored ministers and members 
of the Church South into an independent colored de- 
nomination. 

This was soon after the close of the Civil War and 
the matter came up in the first General Conference of 
the Church South, following the close of that conflict. 

Slavery having been destroyed, and the status of the 
colored people in the South having been changed, the 
Church South seemed to conclude that it would be 
better for the people of color to have ecclesiastical in- 
dependence also. So the Church South General Con- 
ference, in 1866, decided that if its colored membership 
desired to be made independent, the bishops, " if, and 
when, their godly judgment approved, should organ- 
ize them into an independent body." 

Following this authorization the bishops of the 
Church South, in the year immediately after the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1866, formed a number of colored 
Annual Conferences, or as Bishop McTyeire, of the 

179 



180 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Church South, more specifically states, the colored 
people " were set off into circuits, districts, and Annual 
Conferences." * 

This arrangement proved acceptable and in a little 
while the preachers in these new Conferences and the 
members of the Churches within their bounds expressed 
a desire for an independent Church organization, and 
the desire was based on the ground that it would be 
better for both white and colored people to have their 
own separate Churches and schools and for each to have 
ecclesiastical independence and separation. 2 

The preachers in the colored Annual Conferences, 
therefore, requested the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to appoint a com- 
mission from the said General Conference to confer 
with delegated colored men representing the colored 
Conferences. 

The result was that the Church South General Con- 
ference set off its colored ministers and members and 
organized them into a new denomination under the title 
" The Colored Methodist Episcopal Church in Amer- 
ica," which was the name chosen by the colored people 
themselves. 

The new body was constituted at a convention held 
in Jackson, Tennessee, in the month of December, 1870. 
Bishops Paine and McTyeire presided at this " Con- 
ventional General Conference," as it was called, and 
doubtless guided the convention by their counsel, at 
least in a general way. 

The " Conventional General Conference " of the new 
Church adopted the Book of Discipline of the Church 

1 Bishop McTyeire, "History of Methodism," p. 671. 

2 Bishop Holsey, in The Independent, March 5, 1891. 



A NEW COLORED CHURCH 181 

South, without any material alterations, or, as Bishop 
McTyeire puts it, " The Discipline of the parent body- 
was adopted, without material alterations." l 

This organizing General Conference also elected two 
colored ministers to be bishops, namely, W. H. Miles 
and R. H. Yanderhorst and they were set apart for the 
episcopal office by Bishops Paine and McTyeire of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in Jackson, Ten- 
nessee, in December, 1870. 2 

Bishop McTyeire states that " The General Confer- 
ence, which authorized this proceeding, also ordered 
that all church property that had been acquired, held, 
and used for Methodist negroes in the past be turned 
over to them by Quarterly Conferences and trustees." 3 

The amount of property thus turned over to the new 
colored denomination has been variously estimated at 
$1,000,000 to $1,500,000. 

The body "determined to elect bishops for life. 
. . . Membership in the body is restricted to negroes. 
The Discipline forbids the using of the church houses 
for political speeches and meetings." 4 

"We may form an idea of the number of colored peo- 
ple who went out from the Church South in 1870 
from the fact that the colored membership in that 
Church in 1866 was 78,742. 5 

That it has had a very considerable growth is shown 
by the fact that in 1913 the Colored Methodist Episco- 

1 Bishop McTyeire's "History of Methodism," p. 671. 

Ubid., p. 671. s IMd., p. 671. 

4 Dr. J. M. Buckley, "A History of Methodists in the United 
States " (The American Church History Series), New York, 1896, 
p. 598. 

6 Bishop McTyeire, " History of Methodism," p. 670. 



182 AMERICAN METHODISM 

pal Church had 2,901 ministers, 2>857 churches, and 
234,721 communicant members. 1 

When this new colored Church was constituted prac- 
tically all the colored Methodists in the United States 
of America were in independent colored Churches ex- 
cepting those who were in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church who probably numbered less than two hundred 
thousand at that time. 

*Dr. H. K. Carroll in " World Almanac " for 1914. 



XIX 
CONSOLIDATION IN CANADA 

AS has been seen the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in 1828 conceded 
the right of independence to its Conference in 
Canada and set it off to be a separate Church, and it be- 
came the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada. 

As such, in its entirety, it maintained a separate 
existence only a short time. 

In that period there was also another Methodism in 
the British part of North America, so that while the 
Canadian Methodist Episcopal Church was in Upper 
Canada, British Wesleyans were in Lower Canada and 
Nova Scotia, for the British Wesleyan Conference had 
sent missionaries from Great Britain to these parts of 
the British possessions in North America. 

Even while the American Methodist Episcopal 
Church administered in Canada there was an under- 
standing between the Methodist Episcopalians and the 
Wesleyans to the effect that the former would work in 
Upper Canada while the latter should operate in Lower 
Canada. 

The British patriotic spirit which had led to the de- 
tachment of the Canada Conference from the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 
and the ecclesiastical attachment of the Canadian 
Methodist Episcopalians to Great Britain, soon led to a 
rapprochement between some in the new Methodist 

183 



184 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Episcopal Church of Canada and the Wesleyans who 
were directly related to the Conference in England. 

It was recognized that Canada was a province of 
Great Britain and quite a number reasoned that the 
proper thing would be to have one Methodism and 
that of the British Wesleyan type. So, as early as 
1832, when the Methodist Episcopal Conference in 
Canada had been independent only about four years, a 
correspondence on the subject of union began between 
the missionaries of the British Wesley an body in Lower 
Canada, and leading ministers of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in Upper Canada. 

The result was that a majority of the Canadian 
Methodist Episcopalians in the Conference concluded 
that it was wise for them to affiliate with the Wesley an 
Methodists and make one body of British "Wesleyans in 
these British provinces. So, in 1833, the Methodist 
Episcopal Conference in Canada agreed to unite with 
the Wesleyans in Canada, and the whole movement 
evidently grew out of the war of 1812-1814 between 
the United States and Great Britain. 

Those who went into this combination from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada gave up the 
Methodist Episcopal title, and the united body took the 
Wesleyan Methodist name, changed the Episcopal 
polity, and conformed to the Discipline and mode of 
the British Wesleyan Conference, were connected with 
the parent body in England, and, as an affiliated, or, to 
some extent, a dependent Conference, received a 
President from the body in Great Britain. 

However, the act carrying the Methodist Episcopal 
Conference of Canada into this combination had been 
consummated without any formal and direct consultation. 



CONSOLIDATION IN CANADA 185 

with the people of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
of Canada. As a consequence there was considerable 
dissatisfaction with the transaction which by some was 
declared to be illegal. 

A forceful minority denied the right of the Confer- 
ence to make such a radical change which amounted in 
intent to the destruction of the Church, and asserted 
that it was a violation of the agreement between the 
Canadian Conference and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America which had per- 
mitted, granted, and recognized the independence of the 
Canadian Methodist Episcopalians. 

These dissatisfied parties who preferred the Ameri- 
can plan and who protested against having their 
Church taken away from them and their being merged 
into another body, demanded that their own organiza- 
tion, the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada, be 
continued. 

Kepresenting these persons, certain superannuated 
ministers and local preachers, holding these views, met 
in June, 1834, and decided to continue the Methodist 
Episcopal Church of Canada, and the outcome was that 
this Methodist Episcopal Church thus continued took a 
new start and grew to considerable proportions. 

There also appeared another form of Methodism 
called The New Connection. 

These different forms of Methodism worked side by 
side for another generation and more, and, then, in 
1874, a union was effected between the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church of Canada, the British "Wesleyans in 
Canada, and the New Connection Methodists in the 
same country, and the new combination was called The 
Methodist Church of Canada. 



186 AMERICAN METHODISM 

In this consolidation there were modifications of 
polity, thus instead of presiding elders appeared the 
title Chairmen of Districts, the title Bishops was 
dropped, while the episcopal idea appeared in a modi- 
fied form of superintendency with Superintendent as 
the title of the chief executive officer. 

In Canada there were also, and are, what are called 
Primitive Methodists and the Primitive Methodist body 
remains distinct. 

There remains another body of Methodists in Canada 
which perpetuates the title Episcopal. It, likewise, had 
a relationship to the great Republic to the South. 

When slavery existed in the United States of 
America, colored people fled from that servitude, and, 
passing through the Northern States, settled in Canada. 

What ecclesiastical training they had received they 
carried with them into their new country and as a re- 
sult organized a Methodist Episcopal Church, or, more 
exactly, constituted a Conference in connection with 
the African Methodist Episcopal Church of the United 
States. 

This colored body became independent in 1856, and 
adopted as its name The British Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

This Church has two Conferences, the Ontario and 
the Nova Scotia. It has also a mission in Bermuda. 
Though not a very large body its members have pre- 
ferred the independence of their own color. 



XX 

UNION OF THE METHODIST AND THE METH- 
ODIST PEOTESTANT OHUECHES 

THE union of the antislavery wing of the Meth- 
odist Protestant Church with the Wesleyan 
Connection of America was not a complete 
union and had not the success anticipated in the forma- 
tion of " The Methodist Church." 

Practical difficulties developed in the attempted re- 
adjustment. Thus as one historian states: "In the 
West the gravity of the situation as to the ' Methodist ' 
Church confronted the brethren. The old name (Meth- 
odist Protestant) was graven in stone on tablets facing 
nearly all the church property and in all the deeds. It 
was not found an easy legality to change the name in 
the chartered funds and institutions ; the reason for 
making it and, much more, for retaining it, had passed 
away ; Doctor Brown and Doctor Collier, in the Meth- 
odist Recorder, advocated a return to the Methodist 
Protestant name, in June, 1870, and others united in 
discussing the proposal." 

The second General Conference of the Methodist 
Church was held in 1871. The record reads: "Min- 
utes of the Second General Conference of the Method- 
ist Church (formerly Methodist Protestant), held at 
Pittsburgh, Pa., May 17-27, 1871." 

A resolution was offered : " That the committee on 

187 



188 AMERICAN METHODISM 

legislation be instructed to inquire whether the change 
of name from Methodist Protestant to that of Method- 
ist Church does not require a more particular statement 
of the steps taken to bring about that change, with the 
view of more fully assisting in litigation in regard to 
church property." 

Fraternal messengers from the Maryland Conference 
of the Methodist Protestant Church were received and 
heard, as were fraternal messengers from the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church. One of the latter was Dr. S. M. 
Merrill, who the next year was elected a bishop. 

The General Conference appointed five fraternal 
messengers to the ensuing General Conference of the 
Methodist Protestant Church. This was significant. 

Another significant fact was the report of the com- 
mittee on Methodistic Union, in which appeared the 
following : " In the love of the Saviour, and by the 
precious memories of those honored servants of God, 
who were founders of the Methodist Protestant Church, 
we invite our brethren to meet us in an effort to effect 
union of the two Churches. We recommend that the 
fraternal delegates appointed by the General Confer- 
ence be constituted a Commission to receive any propo- 
sitions looking towards union that may be made by the 
General Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, 
and report the same to the next General Conference of 
the Methodist Church. We also hope that the litera- 
ture of both Churches will be freely interchanged." 

The signs indicated a drawing together and pointed 
towards a combination. 

In the next General Conference of the Methodist 
Protestant Church held in Lynchburg, Ya., in May, 
1874, the "Reverend Dr. Wesley Kenney, from the 



METHODIST AND PROTESTANT 189 

General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
was introduced, and addressed the Conference frater- 
nally and officially," thus showing at least the desire of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church for fraternal and close 
relations with the Methodist Protestant Church which, 
at that time, was mainly in the South, though there 
were a few representatives from Pennsylvania, Indiana, 
Iowa, and Colorado. 

From the Methodist Church fraternal greetings were 
brought by the Reverend Alexander Clark, editor, and 
James Robison, publisher, of the Methodist Recorder. 

Fraternity had come to the front and with it came 
the suggestion of organic union, and a special com- 
mittee presented a report in which appeared the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

" Resolved, That a committee of nine persons be ap- 
pointed by this General Conference to confer with any 
like commission from any Methodist body in America 
who may signify a desire to confer with them upon the 
subject of union with the Methodist Protestant Church ; 
and especially with a committee of nine, to be appointed 
by the General Conference of the Methodist Church, 
which has made overtures to us for a reunion, believing 
it to be the desire of the majority of the members of 
the Methodist Church to effect a union of the Method- 
ist and Methodist Protestant Churches, upon terms 
which shall be alike agreeable and honorable to each ; 
and to submit the terms of union to the General Con- 
vention hereinbefore provided for." 

This was adopted " with great unanimity." 

The report also provided for the holding of a General 
Convention to take into consideration " certain changes 
in the Constitution of the Church," which convention 



190 AMERICAN METHODISM 

was to meet at Abingdon, Virginia, on the first Friday 
in May, 1878. 

Not one of the commissioners appointed by the 
General Conference of the Methodist Church appeared 
at Lynchburg and the reason given was that the 
Methodist Protestant General Conference of 1870 had 
stricken out the authorization of commissioners to meet 
commissioners appointed by the Methodist General 
Conference of 1871 to " receive any proposition look- 
ing towards union that might be made " but not to 
propose any. 

Dr. John Scott, of the Methodist Church, has said : 
" There is one amusing thing, however, which cannot 
fail to be noticed in connection with the action of each 
of the parties to the proposed union, and that is the 
caution taken to prevent the impression that it was the 
party that first proposed the union." 

Dr. Edward J. Drinkhouse, elected editor of the 
Methodist Protestant at this General Conference of 
1874, has written some very pertinent remarks re- 
garding the situation at that time. He says : " It 
was the gloomiest period in the history of the 
Methodist Protestant Church, and was felt by the 
representatives at Lynchburg. Then were revealed 
the devastating effects of the aborted union move- 
ment with the Church South. The condition of the 
Book Concern and periodical was critical in the ex- 
treme. After the greenback issues of the Civil War, 
and the inflation of artificial values, there came the 
necessary reaction, and the period of 1872-1876 was 
one of depreciation and well-nigh panic. All the 
Churches shared in the depression, and, as is the case 
in times of discouragement, they cast about for helps ; 



METHODIST AND PROTESTANT 191 

and it inaugurated among the Methodists in particular 
the era of fraternity and 'Union.' It developed a 
marvellous tenacity and fidelity to principles at the 
same time, and, if the writer were disposed to claim 
special providential oversight, it is apparent that noth- 
ing but such oversight saved the Methodist Protestant 
Church, in its disunited sections, from absorption, and 
proclaimed its mission among the Churches not yet ac- 
complished. With the best motives ecclesiastical self- 
ishness is capable of, not a few of the prominent 
ministers were baited to change their Church relations. 
The futility of such a struggle, as Churches, was pointed 
out, and the fatuity of preachers, whose abilities would 
command ample temporal support, still adhering, with 
the love of personal sacrifice, to a theory of Church 
government, insidiously urged." 

Union, however, was approaching. 

The General Conference of the Methodist Church 
which met in Princeton, Illinois, May 19-31, 1875, had 
the matter of union squarely before it. 

Several propositions for union for the Methodist 
Church and the Methodist Protestant Church were 
made by members of the General Conference, and 
these propositions were referred to a committee on 
Methodist Union. Letters were received from one of 
the commissioners of the Methodist Protestant Church 
and from two fraternal messengers from the General 
Conference of that body, and another fraternal mes- 
senger was present "and made a winning address, 
hoping that the divided stream of the Church would 
soon be united." 

Bishop Janes of the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
introduced and delivered an hour's address on fraternity 



192 . AMERICAN METHODISM 

and union, distinctly favoring the organic union of all 
branches of Methodism in the United States, and the 
Reverend Dr. "William Hunter, the regular fraternal 
delegate from the same Church, spoke in the same vein. 
To this a response was made by the Reverend A. H. 
Bassett in behalf of the General Conference, in which 
address he suggested that " the mission of the Reform 
Church was not yet accomplished." Fraternal mes- 
sengers were appointed to the ensuing General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church as proof of 
the brotherly regard of the Methodist Church. 

The supreme act of this General Conference was the 
adoption of the report of " the Committee on Method- 
istic Union," the most important part of which was the 
following : 

"Inasmuch as the cause for suspension of official 
relations by the Conferences of the North now repre- 
sented in this General Conference is now entirely re- 
moved by the providence of God, and the suspension 
having from the first been declared to be only con- 
tingent upon the continuance of the cause complained 
of. And whereas, furthermore, the General Conference 
of the South, assembled at Lynchburg, Ya., May, 1874, 
did in accordance with mutual and reciprocal advances 
for reunion elect nine commissioners, to meet nine 
coordinate commissioners expected to be appointed by 
this General Conference now in session, to deliberate 
together and devise plans for reunion alike honorable 
and desirable to each ; therefore this committee unan- 
imously recommend the election of nine persons as 
commissioners for said purpose." 

The slave question was the cause of the division 
originally, but now slavery itself was dead, and the 



METHODIST AND PROTESTANT 193 

cause of the division having been eliminated, there was 
nothing to prevent the Methodist Protestant Church 
and the Methodist Church coming together as an 
organic unity. 

The Methodist General Conference in the report of 
the Committee on Union took another important action 
which was a declaration against " the policy of absorp- 
tion in the Methodist Episcopal Church," and among 
the last resolves of this General Conference was a 
respectful declination of the overtures from the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, in which the Conference said: 
" We deem it our bounden duty to adhere to our dis- 
tinctive organization," etc. 

The nine commissioners having been appointed it 
was decided to have an early consultation with the 
nine commissioners of the Methodist Protestant Church, 
and by mutual agreement a call was issued for an 
initial meeting at the First Church, Pittsburgh, Penn- 
sylvania, on the 22d of October in the same year, 1875. 

On that date and in that place the commissioners of 
both Churches met, and after a day's deliberation the 
subcommittee reported a Basis of Union. According 
to this basis the title " Methodist Church " was to be 
dropped and the name of the united or reunited Church 
was to be "The Methodist Protestant Church," and 
the ratio of representation in each class was to be one 
in every thousand members. Having finished this 
part of the work the joint commission adopted the 
following : " Resolved that a Convention of the Method- 
ist Protestant and Methodist Churches be held in Balti- 
more the second Friday in May, 1877, to consummate 
the whole work." 

In the meantime the General Conference of the 



194 AMEBICAN METHODISM 

Methodist Episcopal Church convened in the city of 
Baltimore, in May, 1876, and fraternal delegates from 
both the Methodist and the Methodist Protestant 
Churches were present and delivered fraternal addresses. 

The Annual Conferences of the Methodist Protestant 
and the Methodist Churches quite promptly voted that 
the proposed Conventions be called, and on the 11th 
of May, 1877, the General Convention of the Method- 
ist Protestant Church met in the East Baltimore 
Church, on Fayette Street, Baltimore, and the General 
Convention of the Methodist Church met at the same 
time in the West Baltimore Church on Green Street in 
the same city. 

Seventy-one representatives from the Methodist 
Protestant Church were present, and seventy-eight 
from the Methodist Church. The full list of selected 
representatives was one hundred and three from the 
Methodist Protestant Church, and one hundred and 
eleven from the Methodist Church, so there were 
thirty-two absentees from the former Church, and 
thirty-three from the latter. 

Each body appointed a conference committee, and 
the Joint Committee of Conference submitted the fol- 
lowing : 

"Resolved 1. That the Basis of Union agreed upon 
by the Joint Commission of the Methodist Protes- 
tant and Methodist Churches, at Pittsburgh, Pa., be 
adopted, and that we interpret that Basis of Union on 
the condition of receiving members into the Church to 
be substantially the same as is now in the New Edition 
of the Methodist Book of Discipline — the third item, 
relative to children, having been inadvertently omitted 
in the published Basis of Union. 



METHODIST AND PROTESTANT 195 

"Resolved 2. That the matter of suffrage and 
eligibility to office be left to the Annual Conferences 
respectively, — Provided, That each Annual Conference 
shall be entitled to representation on the same ratio, in 
the General Conference ; And provided. That no rule 
shall be passed which shall infringe the right of suf- 
frage or eligibility to office. 

" Besolved 3. That this Joint Committee of Confer- 
ence recommend to the General Convention of the 
Methodist Protestant Church, and to the General Con- 
vention of the Methodist Church, now in session, the 
immediate Organic Union of the Methodist Protestant 
and Methodist Churches — upon the Basis of Union set 
forth in this report." 

This report was adopted unanimously by the Method- 
ist Convention on the 15th of May, and, the next day, 
by the Methodist Protestant Convention by a yea and 
nay vote of sixty yeas to five nays. 

In the Methodist Convention on the same day the 
following paper was agreed to : 

"That in the consummation of the union of the 
Methodist and Methodist Protestant Churches, the 
bodies, which are parties thereto, take with them all of 
the boards, institutions, and property belonging to the 
General Conferences represented in the two Conven- 
tions now assembled, or in the Joint Convention. That 
this Convention appoint a committee of three persons to 
inquire into, and make provision for, any alteration that 
may be deemed necessary or important to make con- 
formity and uniformity in all of the titles of property 
and boards to the new conditions and relations thus 
assumed." 

A Joint Committee on Formal Union had arranged 



196 AMERICAN METHODISM 

for the two Conventions to come together in the Starr 
Methodist Protestant Church, in Baltimore, and each 
Convention selected its own marshal. On the fifth 
day, namely May 16th, each Convention started from 
the church where it had been meeting. As one of the 
participants tells us : 

" The Methodist Protestant Convention, about 4 : 30 
p. M. of the fifth day, marched to the corner of Lom- 
bard and Fremont Streets, about half-way to the 
Methodist Convention at Green and Lombard Streets, 
who marched to the same junction. Then two by two, 
under the direction of the marshals, they joined, one 
from either Convention, and so proceeded to the Starr 
Church, a united body. The spectacle attracted much 
attention from the citizens as well it might. The two 
Conventions had been noticed in all the secular papers 
of the country, even the large New York dailies giving 
up space to them, while the family of Christian Advo- 
cates, North and South, not wont to advertise any- 
thing Methodist Protestant, sent felicitations, so that 
the Church came into notice as never before in its his- 
tory, and to its manifest advantage." 

It was indeed a spectacular and impressive event as 
the members of the two Conventions symbolized their 
oneness by marching two by two and arm in arm 
through the streets of Baltimore on Wednesday after- 
noon, May 16, 1877. 

Reaching the Starr Church the procession entered in 
the same order, and the official minutes state that " In 
accordance with the Plan of Union agreed to by the 
Conventions of the Methodist Protestant and Method- 
ist Churches, at Baltimore, Md., May 15 and 16, 1877, 
the representatives of the two Churches assembled in 



METHODIST AND PROTESTANT 197 

Joint Convention at Starr Methodist Protestant Church, 
Baltimore, Md., May 16, 1877, at 4 : 45 p. m., for the 
purpose of consummating the Union of the Churches 
represented." 

The Rev. L. W. Bates, D. D., President of the 
Methodist Protestant Convention, called the Joint Con- 
vention to order, and then the Rev. J. J. Smith, D. D., 
President of the Methodist Convention addressed the as- 
sembly, expressing his joy on seeing this day, and say- 
ing : " We may have diversities of opinion, and yet, as in 
the natural world, with diversity there may still be 
unity — unity of heart and unity of work. This day's 
work will swell the great wave of unification that rolls 
on to conquer the world." 

Doctor Bates responded and said : 

" Twenty-three years have passed since the Churches 
here represented have been represented in the same 
body. The universal Church and world will recognize 
our action as the accomplishment of a great, noble, and 
glorious purpose. We have done what it is exceedingly 
difficult for men, or any form of organization, to do. 
But it was not difficult for us, because in our separa- 
tion there was less crimination and bitterness of feeling 
than ever attended a like severance of relations. Still 
retaining the old respect, and confidence, and love 
towards each other, we found it easy to blend. It was 
also easy for us, because we represent the sentiment of 
the people who compose our Churches. They speak 
to-day. We are the echo of the united Church we rep- 
resent. . . . We take the initiative in the glorious 
work of unification among such Churches of the land. 
. . . I now pronounce this the General Convention 
of the Methodist Protestant Church. I call upon you 



198 AMERICAN METHODISM 

to arise and sing, ' Praise God from whom all blessings 
flow.' " 

One who was there says : " The scene that ensued 
beggars description. As the great assembly arose, and 
the triumphant measures of the old doxology rolled 
through the sanctuary, every eye was dim with tears, 
and every form trembled with unutterable emotion. 
' The place where they were was shaken, and they 
were all filled with the Holy Ghost.' Business was 
suspended, and speeches, brief, earnest, joyful, impress- 
ively eloquent, filled up more than an hour." 

The next day permanent officers were elected by 
ballot. A day of thanksgiving was ordered precogni- 
tion of the " providential guidance which has resulted 
in the now happily consummated Union," and the Gen- 
eral Convention finally adjourned on the twenty-third 
day of May, 1877. 

Doctor Drinkhouse remarks in his History, " It was 
the first formal reunion of dissevered ecclesiasticisms 
since the Civil War, and once more the country recog- 
nized a Continental Methodism, knowing no North, no 
South, no East, no "West, sectionally." 

The union had been consummated but it was a union 
between those who always had been essentially the 
same. They were really the same people with the 
same doctrines and the same views as to Church polity. 
The divergence was on the question of slavery but that 
had disappeared with the destruction of slavery itself. 
The supposed union with the Wesleyan Connection had 
been a practical nullity and the "Wesleyan Connection 
continued on its way. It was simply a reunion of 
Methodist Protestantism, one section of which had 
called itself the Methodist Church. 



XXI 

FRATERNAL ADVANCES BETWEEN THE 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND 

THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL 

CHURCH, SOUTH 

THOUGH well intended, perhaps the efforts for 
union were premature, and after a time the 
hope of immediate unifi cation ceased, though 
the desire for ultimate union still was cherished in 
many hearts. 

Union having been frustrated, at least for the time, 
the thought of the Methodist Episcopal Church turned 
towards the development of fraternal feeling between 
it and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, for it 
was plain that there must be fraternity before there 
could possibly be union. So efforts now were made on 
the line of fraternity. 

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, meeting in Brooklyn, in 1872, adopted the 
following on the matter of fraternity, or friendly rela- 
tions with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South : 

" We believe that very generally there has hitherto 
existed among our people a disposition of good will and 
Christian fraternity towards the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. This disposition and purpose we still 
hold and maintain. In whatever degree of success in 
preaching the Gospel, edifying believers, and saving 
souls, God has given to that Church, we devoutly re- 
joice ; and we will continue to pray for the prosperity 

199 



200 AMERICAN METHODISM 

and success of the labors of our brethren of that Church, 
and for its increase in all spiritual and temporal good ; 
and in all our labors, in proximity to the local churches 
and societies of that body, we desire to maintain with 
them relations of Christian good- will." 

No expressions could be more brotherly in form and 
none could more fully breathe the spirit of Christian 
fraternity, but, while the Methodist Episcopal Church 
was so exceedingly fraternal, it did not believe that, to 
be fairly fraternal, it should abandon its work and its 
people throughout the southern part of the United 
States. Therefore, in its report on fraternity it further 
said: 

" Within the parts of the country in which the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, has nearly all its mem- 
bership and institutions, to wit : all the states formerly 
known as slave states, except Maryland and Delaware, 
over three hundred thousand of our members reside, 
with their houses of worship, institutions of learning, 
and other Church arrangements. 

" Our Church is as really settled in that region as in 
any other part of the land ; and every consideration of 
good faith to our own people, and of regard to the in- 
tegrity of our Church, and especially of the unmistak- 
able evidences of the favor of G-od towards our efforts 
there, forbids the thought of relaxing our labors in 
that part of our work. We must therefore continue to 
occupy that part of the country in perpetuity ; and we 
have need to strengthen and reenforce our work in it 
as God shall give us the means and the opportunities. 
But in all this we desire to avoid all unfriendly rival- 
ries with our brethren of the Church South. There is 
abundant room for both us and them, and God may 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 201 

use both of these Churches for the promotion of His 
cause in these parts." 

This of course was a practical denial that the Church 
South was entitled to exclusive possession of the South, 
and an exceedingly plain declaration that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church had a right to be in the South, and 
that it could not conscientiously withdraw from that 
section. Nevertheless it wished to be on fraternal 
terms with the Church South, and therefore the Gen- 
eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
1872, followed its declaration of fraternity by adopting 
the following : 

"To place ourselves in the truly fraternal relation 
towards our Southern brethren which the sentiments 
of our people demand, and to prepare the way for the 
opening of formal fraternity with them, be it hereby 

" Resolved, That this General Conference will ap- 
point a delegation, consisting of two ministers and one 
layman, to convey our fraternal greetings to the Gen- 
eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, at its next session." 

So earnest was this Methodist Episcopal General 
Conference in this expression that the report was re- 
ceived and adopted with great enthusiasm, by a rising 
vote, every delegate, excepting two, voting for it, and 
all the bishops requesting the privilege of standing 
with the Conference in the vote. 

The fraternal delegates appointed by the Board of 
Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in com- 
pliance with the order of the General Conference, were 
the Reverend Albert S. Hunt, D. D., of New York, the 
Reverend Charles H. Fowler, D. D., of Chicago, and 
General Clinton B. Fisk, of St. Louis. 



202 AMERICAN METHODISM 

These delegates attended the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, which met in 
the city of Louisville, in the month of May, 1874, and 
they were received with marked courtesy. 

On the eighth day of the month, these fraternal mes- 
sengers were escorted to the platform and formally 
introduced to the presiding bishop, Bishop Doggett, 
who introduced them to the other bishops, and to the 
Reverend Dr. Lovick Pierce, who had been the delegate 
of the Church South in 1848. The latter introduction 
was a delicate touch of graciousness which must have 
been a good deal of a solace to the soul of Doctor 
Pierce with his memories of '48. The delegates pre- 
sented their credentials which recited the action of the 
General Conference of 1872, their appointment, and 
their authorization " to bear the ' fraternal greeting ' of 
the said General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church to the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South." 

The credentials were signed by an episcopal commit- 
tee of four bishops, namely, by Bishop Edmund S. 
Janes, who was elected bishop in 1844, though he was 
not a member of that General Conference, and by Bish- 
ops Levi Scott, Matthew Simpson, and Edward R. Ames, 
who were members of the General Conference of '44. 

The credentials were dated " New York, April 20, 
1874." 

The Chair then introduced the fraternal delegates to 
the General Conference. Each delegate addressed the 
Conference, as was said, " with eloquence and much 
ability, and acceptably alike to the General Conference 
and to those who sent them upon this errand of Chris- 
tian love." 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 203 

In the course of his remarks, one of the fraternal 
delegates said : 

" Leaving organic union as a question of the future, 
let us make the union of our hearts the question of to- 
day ; and make one holy covenant from this hour, one 
in sympathy and one in purpose, we will toil on, shoul- 
der to shoulder, waiting patiently for that near to-mor- 
row, when there shall be but one Methodism for man- 
kind." 

This was the spirit of the message borne by these 
representatives from the old Methodist Episcopal Church 
to the younger Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

The subject was referred to a committee but, before 
it was ready to report, the fraternal messengers took 
their leave. This was on the 13th of May, but Southern 
courtesy would not permit them to depart without some 
formal expression. So in lieu of the report at that time 
Judge Jackson, of Georgia, and Governor Trusten Polk, 
of Missouri, offered the following resolutions : 

" Resolved, That the message of love and brotherly 
kindness from the Methodist Episcopal Church has been 
cordially received, and has been referred to a Commit- 
tee of Nine, who will, in due time, formally and fra- 
ternally reply thereto. 

"Resolved, That we regret that the distinguished 
messengers sent by the Church cannot remain to await 
the presentation and reception of that report, but, un- 
derstanding that they leave us to-day, we are unwilling 
that they should return home without carrying with 
them the knowledge of our appreciation of their cour- 
teous and fraternal bearing among us, and our wishes 
and prayers for their future happiness and prosperity." 

A number of speeches in harmony with the resolu- 



204 AMERICAN METHODISM 

tions were made, among them one by Dr. Edmund "W\ 
Sehon, who in 1844 belonged to the Ohio Conference 
and from it was a delegate to the General Conference 
of that year. In that Conference he joined with the 
Southern members in signing the historic " Protest," 
and, later, cast in his lot with the Church South. 
Thirty years had passed since the confusion and excite- 
ment of 1844, and he still had an affection for the old 
Church, as shown in his eloquent speech at this time, in 
which he said : 

" The appearance of this commission from the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church has brought an hour which my 
soul has long desired to see. I pray the blessing of God 
upon them as a member of the old fraternity ; and, as 
a member of the new, I rejoice at any omen of peace 
and good feeling. It is the demand of the age, of the 
period in which we live, and of our glorious religion, 
that we extend to them a fraternal hand. I say noth- 
ing of differences. Let the future take care of itself. 
Let us now extend to them our hands in Christian fra- 
ternity." 

After the insertion of the word Christian before cour- 
teous, the resolutions of Judge Jackson and Governor 
Polk were adopted, and the fraternal delegates bade the 
Conference farewell. 

The report of the Committee of Nine was not pre- 
sented until the 23d of May. The report was quite 
lengthy. In opening it recited the action of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal General Conference of 1872 and the des- 
ignation of three representatives, who had appeared and 
delivered their message. Then the report continues : 

" It is with pleasure that we bear testimony to the 
distinguished ability, and the eloquent and courteous 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 205 

manner, in which these Christian brethren discharged 
their trust. Their utterances warmed our hearts. Their 
touching allusions to the common heritage of Methodist 
history, to our oneness of doctrines, polity, and usage, 
and their calling to mind the great work in which we 
are both engaged for the extension of the kingdom of 
their Lord and ours, stirred within us precious mem- 
ories. 

" We are called upon, by the terms of the action of 
their General Conference, to consider measures neces- 
sary ' to prepare the way for the opening of formal fra- 
ternity.' Every transaction and utterance of our past 
history pledges us to regard favorably, and to meet 
promptly, this initial response to our long expressed de- 
sire." 

This was proceeding in the most harmonious manner, 
but just here was interjected an allusion to Dr. Lovick 
Pierce and the episode of 1868, alluding to the Doctor 
as " our rejected delegate," though the General Confer- 
ence of 1868 did not reject him personally but extended 
courtesies to him, inviting him to attend the sessions, to 
sit within the bar, and to present propositions to dimin- 
ish or remove the difficulties between the two bodies. 
Then the report referred to the incidents of 1869, when 
the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church made 
advances to their bishops ; of 1870, when a deputation 
visited the General Conference of the Church South ; 
and now, in 1874, when a commission from the Meth- 
odist Episcopal General Conference brings " fraternal 
greetings," and the report says : 

" "We hail with pleasure, and embrace the opportunity 
at length afforded us of entering into negotiations to 
secure tranquillity and fellowship to our alienated com- 



206 AMERICAN METHODISM 

munions upon a permanent basis, and alike honorable 
to all." 

This seemed to be a decided gain but the report im- 
mediately declares against the union of the two Churches. 
It says : 

" We deem it proper, for the attainment of the ob- 
ject sought, to guard against all misapprehension. Or- 
ganic union is not involved in fraternity. In our view 
of the subject, the reasons for the separate existence of 
these two branches of Methodism are such as to make 
corporate union undesirable and impracticable. The 
events and experiences of the last thirty years have 
confirmed us in the conviction that such a consumma- 
tion is demanded by neither reason nor charity. We 
believe that each Church can do its work and fulfill its 
mission most effectively by maintaining an independent 
organization. The causes which led to the division in 
1844, upon a Plan of Separation mutually agreed upon, 
have not disappeared. Some of them exist in their 
original form and force, and others have been modified 
but not diminished." 

This shows that the Church South General Confer- 
ence of 1874 still stood for the old Southern interpreta- 
tion of the acts of 1844, and was as determined as ever 
to maintain its " independent organization." In brief 
it was opposed to any " organic union " with the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, and would not respond affirm- 
atively to the appeal of one of the fraternal delegates 
to " make one holy covenant that from this hour, one 
in sympathy and one in purpose, we will toil on, shoul- 
der to shoulder, waiting patiently for that near to-mor- 
row, when there shall be but one Methodism for man- 
kind." 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 20? 

For their opposition to union they gave several rea- 
sons. For example " the size of the connection, and the 
extent of territory covered by it " ; the General Confer- 
ence " was becoming too unwieldy for the ends orig- 
inally designed ; " for the General Conference the 
Methodist Episcopal Church " claimed for it preroga- 
tives which seemed to us both dangerous and unconsti- 
tutional. In their view the General Conference is su- 
preme. Although restricted in the exercise of its 
power by a constitution, it is the judge of the restric- 
tions, and is thus practically unlimited. In our view, 
the General Conference is a body of limited powers. 
It cannot absorb the functions of other and coordinate 
branches of the Church government, and there are 
methods by which all constitutional questions may be 
brought to a satisfactory issue." With these differences 
of view, " "Were the two Methodisms organically united, 
it would lead to serious collision, and expose the minor- 
ity to harassing legislation, if not to oppression." 

Then came a reference to slavery and the report 
said : " The existence of slavery in the Southern States 
furnished an occasion, with its connected questions, 
fruitful of disturbance ; and to this the division has been 
mainly attributed. The position of Southern Method- 
ism on that subject was Scriptural. Our opinions have 
undergone no change." Thus after the lapse of all 
these years since emancipation they assert that their 
old views as to slavery were unchanged and still affirm 
that these views were Scriptural. And this in 1874, 
nearly ten years after the war ! 

The report also referred to difference of method in 
dealing with the colored people, saying : " We have 
set off our colored members into an independent eccle- 



208 AMERICAN METHODISM 

siastical body with our own creed and polity. . . . 
This method has met with encouraging success. "We be- 
lieve it is the best for both races. . . . Our North- 
ern brethren have pursued a different plan. . . . 
They have mixed conferences, mixed congregations, and 
mixed schools. We do not ask them to adopt our plan. 
We could not adopt theirs." Of course long years ago 
that mixed condition was regarded as a necessity grow- 
ing out of pioneer work and unsettled conditions, and 
it is plain that they have been greatly modified. Only 
a few years before the Church South had its own mixed 
congregations. Then the report goes on to say : 

" But, while we are clear and final in our declarations 
against the union of the two Methodisms, we welcome 
measures looking to the removal of obstacles in the way 
of amity and peace." 

Following this is a disquisition on the so-called " Plan 
of Separation," after which came the following : 

" Resolved, That this General Conference has re- 
ceived with pleasure the fraternal greetings of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, conveyed to us by their 
delegates, and that our College of Bishops be, and are 
hereby, authorized to appoint a delegation, consisting 
of two ministers and one layman, to bear our Christian 
salutations to their next ensuing General Conference." 

Thus was the interchange of salutations through fra- 
ternal delegates from the two Churches inaugurated 
and established, for it has continued until the present 
time and, doubtless, will continue in the future. 

Then the report closed with the following : 

" Resolved, That, in order to remove all obstacles to 
formal fraternity between the two Churches, our Col- 
lege of Bishops is authorized to appoint a commission, 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 209 

consisting of three ministers and two laymen, to meet 
a similar commission authorized by the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to adjust 
all existing difficulties." 

This report was finally adopted by a vote of 109 
to 61, but there had been a long and animated discus- 
sion, occupying the morning and the afternoon session, 
and the report was recommitted and after it had been 
slightly modified and rearranged, it was adopted by 
the above mentioned vote. 

The large adverse vote calls for some explanation. 
The fact is that a number of the members wished the 
report simply to respond to the fraternal greetings and 
to express fraternal feelings without reference to former 
differences and unpleasantnesses. 

This event of 1874 elicited from the Church South 
General Conference very general and very emphatic 
opposition to union between the Church South and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, but it should not be 
deemed a failure for it brought out a feeling of fra- 
ternity from both Churches, and a willingness to at- 
tempt a settlement of certain difficulties and, particu- 
larly, those that related to property in dispute. 

Since about the close of the Civil War the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, as the evidence shows, had made re- 
peated advances of a fraternal character, involving not 
only an expressed desire for fraternal relations, but also 
an avowed effort towards union with the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. 

It was supposed that the cause, or occasion of nearly 
all the differences, namely, human slavery, having dis- 
appeared, that there could be no insuperable obstacle 
in the way of an ecclesiastical unity. 



210 AMERICAN METHODISM 

It was found, however, that the Church South did 
not desire a union and was positively opposed to a 
fusion with the old Church. It was plain, therefore, 
that there was no immediate hope for organic unity. 
Nevertheless, though proffers of union were unsuccess- 
ful, formal fraternity was a possibility. 

The act of the 1872 General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, directing that fraternal dele- 
gates should convey its formal and most sincere greet- 
ings to the General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, which was to meet in 1874, opened 
the way for the Church South to reciprocate in response 
by expressions of fraternal feeling, which it did, so 
that, by these public declarations, the relations of the 
two Churches were placed on a mutual and well de- 
fined basis of fraternity. 

Then when the General Conference of the Church 
South responded by sending its fraternal delegates to 
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and this mutual interchange of delegations 
and greetings was continued quadrennium after quad- 
rennium, there was established a recognized, as well as 
an actual, kinship between the two bodies. 

Negotiations for union were held in abeyance for the 
time being but efforts continued in the promotion of 
brotherliness. The fraternal delegation of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, to the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1876, con- 
sisted of Dr. Lovick Pierce, Dr. James A. Duncan, and 
Dr. L. C. Garland. 

It was a fitting compliment to Doctor Pierce, who 
had been a prominent member of the General Confer- 
ence of 1844, one of the organizers of the Methodist 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 211 

Episcopal Church, South, and the representative of that 
Church to the Methodist Episcopal General Conference 
of 1868, that he should be designated by his Church to 
be its fraternal delegate in 1876 and the leader of the 
delegation. This time he could be sure of the com- 
pletest sort of a reception his heart could desire. Now 
there would be no question as to his most cordial recog- 
nition as a delegate or as to the propriety of fraternity 
between the two Churches. 

Unfortunately there was in store a disappointment 
for him, for his Church, and for the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church. Sad to say he was not able to reach the 
Conference. He was in the seventy-second year of his 
ministry and the ninety-second of his age but, vener- 
able though he was, he started for the Conference, but 
ill-health prevented his reaching the Conference seat. 
However he sent to the body a letter which was perti- 
nent, pathetic, and full of his characteristic frankness. 

On Friday morning, the twelfth day of May, 1876, 
and at eleven o'clock, the order of the day in the Gen- 
eral Conference was the reception of the fraternal 
delegates from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
Bishop Peck was presiding, but he suggested that 
Bishop Janes take the chair. This was appropriate 
not only because Bishop Janes was the senior bishop 
but also because he had been elected in 1844 before the 
Southern delegates withdrew to form the Church South. 
After taking the chair, Bishop Janes presented to the 
Conference the Reverend James A. Duncan, D. D., 
president of the Randolph Macon College, and Landon 
C. Garland, LL. D., Chancellor of the Yanderbilt Uni- 
versity, as the fraternal delegates from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. 



212 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Then the secretary of the Conference read the cre- 
dentials, the action of the General Conference of the 
Church South being signed by Thomas O. Summers, 
the secretary of that General Conference, and the 
designation of the delegates being signed by H. N". 
M'Tyeire, secretary of the College of Bishops. 

Following this the secretary read the letter from 
Dr. Lovick Pierce, the "Senior Fraternal Messen- 
ger." In this letter, or address, Doctor Pierce said: 
" I furnish an instance . . . such as I think it likely 
was never known before in one sent abroad on any 
diplomatic ministry ; a man in the ninety-second year 
of his age, and in the seventy -second of his effective 
ministry" 

In an allusion to the incident of 1848, he said : " I 
had been sent as a lone fraternal messenger from our 
first General Conference, after the division, in 1846, to 
arrange for and settle on a basis of intercommunication, 
so that two General Conferences instead of one should 
be all the difference between us. . . . It was fol- 
lowed by a wintry night of twenty-one years before 
any morning star, foretelling the approach of a better 
day, ever arose above the gloomy horizon that encom- 
passed our beloved Methodism. This star of hope ap- 
peared in the voluntary visit of Bishop Simpson and 
Doctor (now Bishop) Harris to the meeting of our bish- 
ops in St. Louis, May, 1869." 

Here he recounted the successive fraternal approaches 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church down to the frater- 
nal delegation of 1874, and continued by saying : " We 
protest against any longer use of the popular phrase 
' two Methodisms,' as between us. There is but one 
Episcopal Methodism in the United States of America, 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 213 

and you and we together make up this one Methodism. 
. . . For both divisions to call themselves the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church would have been ridiculous. 
And since to you belonged the right to keep the old 
title without any affix, if you so determined, we made 
ourselves the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The 
affix is derived solely from our Southern locality. . . . 
In ninety-two years of our Church existence we have 
increased from a mere beginning to a large fraction 
over two millions of Episcopal Methodists. Then add 
to these all other types of Methodists, though still 
Methodists, and we closely approximate three millions. 
And then, again, when we count in, according to the 
laws of mortality, all that have died, the Methodists, 
in these ninety-two years, we may well say, Behold and 
see what God has done by us as well as for us ! Our 
record is in heaven great as well as in the earth. " 

In closing he said : " Let us, as two companies of 
brothers intrusted with a most precious patrimonial es- 
tate . . . see which of us can so use our portion of 
this Methodist capital as to make its percentage of in- 
come the test of comparative fidelity, industry, and de- 
votion to its polity and its principles of operation, as 
its founders and its fathers turned it over to us. Let us 
do this as brethren of one heart and one mind, of one 
great aim and end, and the future will prove that our 
division into two General Conference jurisdictions was 
a benediction instead of a deprivation." 

This was a remarkable communication from this ven- 
erable minister whose life covered the entire history of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, and whose active life 
for nearly three-quarters of a century had been a con- 
siderable part of that history in its making. In it was 



214 AMERICAN METHODISM 

a brotherly spirit but nowhere is there a wisn for, or a 
suggestion towards the union of the two bodies, but, on 
the contrary, there is a persistent suggestion for the 
continuance of the two separate Churches, and the dec- 
laration that the division was a benediction. 

The reading of Doctor Pierce's letter was followed by 
the fraternal address of the Eeverend James A. Duncan, 
D. D. The address was most gracious and eloquent. 
Referring to its quality, Dr. James M. Buckley has 
said : " Never in the history of American Methodism was 
an impression more delightful and profound made by 
a single paragraph than by his exordium, which was de- 
livered in a manner worthy of the traditions of Cicero." 

Doctor Duncan thus began : 

" Mr. President and Brethren : As I stand in your 
presence to-day, a solemn joy in my heart takes prece- 
dence of all other emotions. The responsibility of my 
mission and of this hour is solemn, but its hope is an 
inspiration of joy. Around me I behold the venerable 
and distinguished representatives of a great Church ; 
beyond them are millions of Methodists in America and 
Europe, who feel deeply concerned in the issues of this 
hour ; beyond them, in still more distant circles, stand 
a great cloud of witnesses, composed of all who care 
for the peace, the unity, and the prosperity of the king- 
dom of our Lord Jesus ; and, sir, above us is the ' gen- 
eral assembly and Church of the first born, who are 
written in heaven,' and among them, high seated in 
their own radiant places, are our sainted fathers ; and 
over all, upon that eternal throne before which we all 
reverently worship, reigns ' the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven 
and earth is named.' In such solemn presence, where 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 215 

all dissensions seem profanities, where all temporal and 
sectional distinctions disappear, and there is neither Jew 
nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor fe- 
male, but all are one in Christ Jesus, through whom all 
have access by one Spirit unto the Father, and ' are no 
more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with 
the saints, and of the household of God ' as a humble 
citizen of that kingdom and member of that household, 
in the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and by her authority as a fraternal messenger, with 
brotherly kindness in my heart, and words of peace 
upon my lips, I salute you this day as brethren of Christ 
Jesus, our Lord." 

Referring to fraternity he said : " Mr. President, you 
will agree with me that a sound, healthful fraternity 
between Christian Churches ought to rest on no un- 
certain ground, but should give an intelligent and ex- 
plicit account of itself. It has been well said, 'The 
amity that wisdom knits not, folly may easily untie.' 
. . . But what is fraternity ? Is it only a quad- 
rennial ceremony, a sort of ecclesiastical court formality, 
a specious parade of public addresses? Is it a mere 
form ? Sir, I humbly conceive that Christian fraternity 
is something more than such a solemn mockery — some- 
thing deeper, more vital, and more sacred. It is a 
great Christian movement, giving concurrent expres- 
sion to the great brotherly kindness of more than a 
million hearts. It is a sublime Christian alliance, in 
which charity becomes supreme over all disputations, 
and reaffirms its meaning, its power, and its conse- 
quences. . . . How to blend all sects into one 
denomination, and obliterate all formal distinction in 
Church government, will, perhaps, continue to be an 



216 AMERICAN METHODISM 

unsolved problem until the millennium. . . . The 
practical value of fraternal relations will entirely de- 
pend upon the character of its principles and the respect 
which they command. . . . We do not establish 
fraternity between these two Churches for any secular 
or worldly end. . . . We do not establish fraternity 
merely as a judicious measure for ending unhappy con- 
troversies. But we hope it will end them. . . . 
We do not establish fraternity merely as a policy 
measure. . . . We do not establish fraternity as a 
measure of sectarian ambition as Methodists. . . . 
Christian fraternity is the reciprocal recognition of 
Christ in each other. ... If fraternity is any- 
thing, it is at least an end of strife — it is peace ; it is a 
delightful silence after a long battle; it is the calm 
after the noise of the waters and the tumult of the ele- 
ments when the Master has said, ' Peace, be still.' " 

Dr. L. C. Garland delivered the third address. It 
was shorter than the others but exceedingly forceful and 
straightforward. Being a layman he voiced the senti- 
ments of the laity of his Church. He said, in part : 

" The regret that an occasion should ever have arisen 
for the division of the Methodist Church was at that 
time, and still is, profound and universal. This regret, 
however, did not extend beyond the occasion, because 
the occasion, as it presented itself to our apprehension, 
was of such a nature as to render division not only 
necessary, but desirable. . . . That difficulties in 
the way of cordial fraternity have existed, and still do 
exist, cannot be denied. . . . We of the South are 
anxious that they should be removed. . . . What 
would our illustrious founder, whose last letter to Mr. 
Asbury contained a charge to maintain the unity of 



FRATERNAL ADVANCES 217 

Methodism throughout the world, think of us, were he 
alive, if we do not compose our strifes, and dwell 
together in the bonds of Christian sympathy and love ? 

" And as patriots, how vast is the responsibility rest- 
ing upon us to restore, as far as power lies in us, a 
kind political feeling between the two sections of the 
country, so lately arrayed against each other in the 
struggles of an internecine war! . . . And what 
influence can we exert in that direction if we fail to 
restore friendly relations between ourselves? If the 
two Churches could bring about the entente cordiale, it 
would accomplish more towards the restoration of good 
feeling between the sections, North and South, than a 
score of Centennial Expositions. 

"Politics appear to me to be a centrifugal force, 
tending continually to engender sectional strife, and to 
the rending asunder the bonds of civil society; and 
where shall we find a force to antagonize it, a centrip- 
etal force to draw together and cement in one the 
disunited parts, if not in the grand unity of a common 
Christian faith ? We do, therefore, sincerely desire the 
restoration of good feeling between the two Churches 
upon a basis derogatory to the honor of neither." 

These were noble sentiments and nobly expressed 
but there was no proffer of organic unity and no sug- 
gestion of the union of the two Churches. However, 
they made for fraternity and that was a great gain 
and the fraternal sentiments were most cordially recip- 
rocated by this General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

After the conclusion of the address of Doctor Gar- 
land, Dr. D. A. Whedon offered the following resolu- 
tion which was adopted by a rising vote ; 



218 AMERICAN METHODISM 

" Resolved^ That we gladly welcome among us the 
distinguished representatives of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, the Eeverend James A. Duncan, D. D., 
and Landon C. Garland, LL. D., greatly regretting at 
the same time the inability to be present with us of their 
associate, the venerable Reverend Dr. Lovick Pierce, 
whom, for his eminent character and services, it would 
have especially delighted us to receive, and whose letter 
has given such satisfaction to the Conference ; and we 
heartily recognize their coming as a harbinger of better 
relations henceforth between the two chief branches 
of our American Methodism. We have listened with 
great pleasure to their words of love and brotherhood 
in response to the fraternal greetings borne to the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, by direction of our General Conference at its 
last session, and, fully reciprocating the kindly senti- 
ments they have expressed, will give their communica- 
tion early and most considerate attention." 

At last fraternity was a declared fact and a working 
force. Fraternal feeling was manifest but the Church 
South had not, through its General Conference or by 
its fraternal delegates, or in any other way expressed 
the faintest wish for a union of the two Churches, but, 
on the contrary, had formally and strongly pronounced 
against organic unity. 

Still, if fraternity was secured, that was a great gain, 
for then the Methodist Episcopal Church could work in 
the South without exciting bitter feelings and the two 
Churches might labor side by side in fraternal har- 
mony. 



XXII 
THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 

THE General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, held in 1874, not 
only resolved to send " a delegation consisting 
of two ministers and one layman, to bear our Christian 
salutations to their [the Methodist Episcopal] next ensu- 
ing General Conference," but on the same day [the 23d 
of May], and in the same report, the Church South 
General Conference adopted the following : 

" Resolved, That in order to remove all obstacles to 
formal fraternity between the two Churches, our Col- 
lege of Bishops is authorized to appoint a commission, 
consisting of three ministers and two laymen, to meet a 
similar commission authorized by the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to adjust 
all existing difficulties." 

Three days after this action was taken, namely, on 
the 26th of May, the last day of the session, the same 
General Conference of the Church South, for some 
reason, as though explanation were needed, took addi- 
tional action and passed the following : 

" Whereas, the discussions and votes of this Confer- 
ence on the subject of fraternal relations with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and its cognate subjects, 
present the appearance of essential differences which do 
not exist ; therefore, 

" 1. Resolved, That upon the subject of fraternal re- 

219 



220 AMERICAN METHODISM 

lations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, upon a 
proper basis, this Conference is a unit. 

" 2. Resolved, That we are also a unit upon the 
propriety of appointing a commission empowered to 
meet a like commission from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, to settle all questions of difficulty between us, and 
that such settlement is essential to complete fraternity. 

" 3. Resolved^ That the only points of difference be- 
tween us on this whole subject are the best methods of 
accomplishing this desired end." 

There had been a spirited debate on the report pre- 
sented on the 23d of May and quite a respectable 
minority objected to the detailed specification of his- 
toric negotiations and differences, beginning with the 
case of Dr. Lovick Pierce in 1846 and 1848. 

The minority wanted these details omitted and of- 
fered a report in which they included the first seven 
paragraphs of the report of the committee, then 
omitted the detailed differences and substituted the fol- 
lowing : 

" But measures preparatory to formal fraternity 
would be defective that leave out of view questions in 
dispute between the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
ourselves. These questions relate to the course pursued 
by some of their accredited agents whilst prosecuting 
their work in the South, and to property which has been 
taken and held by them to this day, against our protest 
and remonstrance. 

" Although feeling ourselves sorely aggrieved in these 
things, we stand ready to meet our brothers of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the spirit of Christian 
candor, and to compose all differences upon the prin- 
ciples of justice and equity. 



THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 221 

" It is to be regretted that the honored representa- 
tives who bore fraternal greetings to us were not em- 
powered also to enter upon a settlement of these vexed 
questions. We are prepared to take advanced steps in 
this direction, and waiving any considerations which 
might justify a greater reserve, we will not only ap- 
point a delegation to return the greeting so gracefully 
conveyed to us from the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
but we will also provide for a commission to meet a 
similar commission from that Church for the purpose of 
settling disturbing questions. 

" Open and righteous treatment of all cases of com- 
plaint will furnish the only solid ground upon which we 
can meet. Relations of amity are with special emphasis 
demanded between bodies so near akin. "We be 
brethren. To the realization of this the families of 
Methodism are called by the movements of the times. 
The attractive power of the Cross is working mightily. 
The Christian elements in the world are all astir in their 
search for each other. Christian hearts are crying to 
each other across vast spaces, and longing for fellow- 
ship. The heart of Southern Methodism being in full 
accord with these sentiments, your committee submit 
the following resolutions for adoption." 

The resolutions were the same as the last two resolu- 
tions of the majority report. The vote was sixty-five 
for and one hundred and three against, and this 
minority report was rejected. 

Remarks in the discussions and the different pro- 
posals for action, and probably some other things, 
seem to have suggested the propriety of passing the 
three additional resolutions of the last day's session. 

The very things alleged against the action of repre- 



222 AMERICAN METHODISM 

sentatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church as " to 
property which has been taken and held by them to 
this day, against our protest and remonstrance,' ' was 
alleged by the Methodist Episcopal Church against 
representatives of the Church South, from its begin- 
ning down to the two General Conferences of 1874 
and 1876. 

It was plain, therefore, that there could be no real, 
and settled, fraternity between the two bodies until 
the right and title to the properties in question had 
been adjusted. 

In order to reach this settlement and for " the open- 
ing of formal fraternity " with the Church South, the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
in 1872, sent three delegates to the 1874 General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and 
that Conference reciprocated the action by sending 
fraternal delegates in response, and by designating a 
commission to compose these differences. 

The Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 1876 
met this by adopting the following : 

" Your committee, to whom was referred a resolution 
adopted by the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, and borne to us with the 
Christian salutations of our sister Church, providing 
for the appointment of a commission on the part of 
that body, to meet a similar commission authorized by 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, beg leave to report 
that they recommend the adoption of the following 
resolution : 

" Resolved^ That, in order to remove all obstacles to 
formal fraternity between the two Churches, our Board 
of Bishops are directed to appoint a commission, con- 



THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 223 

sisting of three ministers and two laymen, to meet a 
similar commission authorized by the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to ad- 
just all existing difficulties." 

In compliance with this authorization, Bishop Harris, 
representing the Board of Bishops, announced the fol- 
lowing commissioners to meet a similar committee 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, namely : 
Morris D. C. Crawford, Enoch L. Fancher, Erasmus Q. 
Fuller, Clinton B. Fisk, John P. Newman." The two 
laymen were Judge Fancher and General Fisk. This 
was on the 20th of May. 

On the 29th of May, Bishop Janes presented to the 
General Conference the certificate of the commissioners 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, which was 
referred to the chairman of the commission appointed 
by the General Conference. 

The commissioners appointed by the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, were Edward H. Myers, 
Eobert K. Hargrove, Thomas M. Finney, David Clop- 
ton, and Kobert B. Yance. 

This joint commission held its sessions in Cape May, 
New Jersey, convening on the 16th of August, 1876, 
and continuing in session seven days, and, because of 
the place of meeting, it has been commonly called the 
Cape May Commission. 

It was a favorable moment for such a meeting, for 
the re-unified nation was celebrating the first centennial 
of its birth — the independence of the United States of 
America as a nation. 

Because of the circumstances and the common 
national thought of the people in general, there was a 
prevailing disposition to forget the Civil War and the 



224 AMERICAN METHODISM 

divisive question, connected therewith. With the danger 
of division passed, people in all parts gave themselves 
up to a season of rejoicing over a perpetuated national 
union and the remembrance of the common history of 
the earlier times which was the heritage of all, and 
these sentiments were calculated to strengthen fraternal 
feelings between the two kindred Churches. 

However, the question before the joint commission 
was not as to the unification of the two denominations 
represented in the commissions. 

The Church South, in its General Conference of 1874, 
had refused to concur in the suggestion of organic unity, 
as it had previously on sundry occasions, but it did 
adopt, as has been noted, a report providing for a com- 
mission to meet a like commission from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church to settle difficulties between the two 
Churches. This action referred most favorably to 
"fraternal relations," and favored this settlement of 
difficulties as " essential to complete fraternity." 

It was now pronounced in favor of " fraternal rela- 
tions," and the commission was created " in order to 
remove all obstacles to formal fraternity between the 
two Churches." 

The purpose of the joint commission was, therefore, 
not to form a union between the two bodies but to 
consider and adjust unsettled questions, especially as 
to property, and to devise a modus vivendi which 
might enable the two Churches to operate in the South 
with some degree of harmony. 

Certain disputed rights as to property here and there 
in the South had caused a considerable degree of agita- 
tion and not a little unpleasant feeling between parties 
representating the one side or the other, especially 



THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 225 

where both Churches were working in the same lo- 
cality. 

Some of these property disputes were results of the 
Civil War in places where the military authorities in 
control had authorized or permitted the representatives 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church to use certain prop- 
erties where the churches had been erected previously 
by the Church South. Difficulties of this character also 
long antedated the war and ran back to the times fol- 
lowing the formation of the Church South in 1845. 
Then, and after the Civil War, the Methodist Episcopal 
Church declared that its property in places had been 
carried over to the Church South, while in some in- 
stances the Southern Church asserted similar aggressions. 

Now was the time to attempt the settlement of all 
such differences and the joint commission was to hear 
and to settle principles that would tend to harmony. 

As a summary of what was done and as a revelation 
as to how it was done, the joint commission issued an 
address, or report, " To the Bishops, the Ministers, and 
the Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." 

In the opening they say : " We, the commissioners 
appointed by authority of the General Conferences, re- 
spectively, of the above-named Churches, to remove all 
obstacles to a formal fraternity, and to adjust all exist- 
ing difficulties between them, deem it proper, in ad- 
vance of our report to the General Conferences of our 
respective Churches, to communicate to you, in general 
terms, the result of the recent harmonious session of our 
joint commission." 

As to the method by which the commission pro- 
ceeded the paper states that "After a written com- 



226 AMERICAN METHODISM 

munication from the commissioners of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, was received and answered by 
the commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
both Boards met in joint session, the labors of which 
were continued during seven days. . . . 

" If any in the Churches entertained the fear, previous 
to our meeting, that we could not obtain complete har- 
mony of sentiment touching the momentous questions 
to be determined, they will be rejoiced to learn that 
after having given due attention to all questions in- 
volved in the proper construction of a platform of com- 
plete fraternity between the two great branches of 
Episcopal Methodism in the United States, we have ar- 
rived at a settlement of every matter affecting, as we 
suppose, the principles of a lasting and cordial adjust- 
ment." 

Eeferring to disputes as to property, the address 
states : " There were two principal questions to be con- 
sidered with regard to Church property in dispute be- 
tween local societies of the two Churches ; first, as to 
the legal ownership of said property ; and second, as to 
whether it will consist with strict equity or promote 
Christian harmony or the cause of religion to dispossess 
those societies now using Church property which was 
originally intended for their use and occupancy, and of 
which they have acquired possession, though they may 
have lost legal title to it by their transfer from one 
Church to the other. We have considered the papers 
in all cases that have been brought to our notice. These 
arose in the following states : Virginia, West Virginia, 
Maryland, Tennessee, Louisiana, North Carolina, and 
South Carolina." 

It will be noticed that all these cases were in the 



THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 227 

South, and that no difficulties of this kind were raised 
in the North. 

Keferring to the principles of settlement, the report 
continues : 

" In respect to some of these cases, we have given 
particular directions, but for all other cases the joint 
commission unanimously adopted the following rules 
for the adjustment of adverse claims to Church prop- 
erty: 

" Kule 1. In cases not adjusted by the joint com- 
mission, any Society of either Church, constituted ac- 
cording to its Discipline, now occupying the Church 
property, shall remain in possession thereof ; provided 
that if there is now in the same place a society of more 
members attached to the other Church, and which has 
hitherto claimed the use of the property, the latter shall 
be entitled to possession. 

" Rule 2. Forasmuch as we have no power to annul 
decisions respecting Church property made by the State 
Courts, the joint commission ordain in respect thereof : 

" (1) In cases in which such a decision has been made, 
or in which there exists an agreement, the same shall be 
carried out in good faith. 

" (2) In communities where there are two societies, 
one belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
the other to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
which have adversely claimed the Church property, it 
is recommended that without delay they amicably 
compose their differences, irrespective of the strict 
legal title, and settle the same according to Christian 
principles, the equities of the particular case, and, so 
far as practicable, according to the principle of the 
aforegoing rule ; but if such settlement cannot be 



228 AMERICAN METHODISM 

speedily made, then the question shall be referred for 
equitable decision to three arbitrators, one to be chosen 
by each claimant from their respective societies, and 
the two thus chosen shall select a third person not con- 
nected with either of said Churches, and the decision of 
any two of them shall be final ; and, 

" (3) That in communities in which there is but one 
society, Eule 1 shall be faithfully observed in the in- 
terest of peace and fraternity. 

" Rule 3. Whenever necessary to carry the forego- 
ing rules into effect, the legal title to Church property 
shall be accordingly transferred. 

" Rule 4. These rules shall take effect immediately. " 

Then the joint commission followed with this recom- 
mendation : 

"In order to further promote the peaceful results 
contemplated by this joint commission, and to remove 
as far as may be all occasion for hostility between the 
two Churches, we recommend to the members of both, 
as a wise rule of settlement where property is in con- 
test, and one or both are weak, that they compose their 
differences by uniting in the same communion, and in 
all cases that the ministers and members recognize each 
other in all the relations of fraternity, as possessed of 
ecclesiastical rights and privileges of equal dignity and 
validity. They should each receive from the other 
ministers and members in good standing with the same 
alacrity and credit as if coming from their own Church, 
and, without interference with each other's institutions 
or missions, they should, nevertheless, cooperate in all 
Christian enterprises. It is not to be supposed in re- 
spect to some mere matters of opinion that all ministers 
and members in either Church will be in accord, but 



THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 229 

we trust and believe that a spirit of fellowship and 
mutual regard will pervade the reconciled ranks of the 
entire ministry and membership of both Churches. 

" We believe, also, that their supreme allegiance to 
the cause of the Great Master will triumph over all 
variation of personal sentiment, and will soon exalt 
the claims of brotherly affection, that from this aus- 
picious hour a new epoch in Methodism will begin its 
brighter history, so that we shall know no unfraternal 
Methodism in the United States, or even in the wide 
world." 

It may be remarked that in all this deliverance of 
the joint commission of the two Churches there is noth- 
ing that disputes, or raises any question as to the right 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church to be in the South, 
and it has been interpreted as conceding that there was 
no line of separation limiting the Methodist Episcopal 
Church to the North, and that there was nothing to 
prevent the Methodist Episcopal Church from being 
anywhere in the South and there to work side by side 
with the Church South. 

The chief question was as to the adjustment of dis- 
puted claims as to property in the South, where under 
the recommendations and rules laid down by the joint 
commission, both Churches could retain property and 
carry on their work. This left the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church in the South by conceded right and by the 
concurrence of the commission of the Church South, 
so that never again could the point be legally or fairly 
raised that the Methodist Episcopal Church had no 
right to be in the South. 

From this time the two Churches were to work the one 
beside the other, as the report phrased and illustrated it : 



230 AMERICAN METHODISM 

" Two by two the apostles began the promulgation 
of Christianity in the world. They were companion 
evangelists, distinct in their individuality; but they 
were, at the same time, one in spirit, purpose and 
fellowship. Their itinerant successors in the chief 
Churches of American Methodism, in restored fra- 
ternity, will vie with each other to wave the banner of 
the cross in this Western world, and henceforth will 
proclaim that these Churches are one in spirit, one in 
purpose, one in fellowship." 

So the two Churches like two apostles were to go to- 
gether in the prosecution of their work. 

The finality and completeness of the adjustment is 
asserted by the joint commission in very strong terms. 
The commission considered that it had constructed " a 
platform of complete fraternity," and that it had " ar- 
rived at a settlement of every matter affecting, . . . 
the principles of a lasting and cordial adjustment." 

According to these declarations all the differences 
between the two Churches were now arranged to the 
satisfaction of both parties. Everything was settled. 
All disputes were harmonized, and they had arrived 
" at the desired consummation of a unanimous agree- 
ment of complete fraternity." The adjustment was, 
and was to be, not only " lasting " but also " cordial." 
They had succeeded "in uniting between them the 
broken cords of affectionate and brotherly fraterniza- 
tion," and from that moment there would be " no un- 
fraternal Methodism." 

Hence the report said : " These fraternized Churches 
have no further occasion for sectional disputes or acri- 
monious differences; they may henceforth remember 
their common origin, pursue their fruit bearing work, 



THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 231 

and rejoice in their own and each other's success, while 
engaged in the same great mission of converting the 
world to Christ." 

According to this the arrangement was not only 
final but also complete. Everything had been adjusted. 
No further unpleasantness could be possible. Never 
again would there be, or could there be, any occasion 
for difficulty or unfraternal difference, but, anywhere 
and everywhere in the South, the two Churches could, 
and would, without friction, work side by side. Para- 
dise was restored. 

The commission made a declaration as to the status 
of the Church South, in which it said : " Since the or- 
ganization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
was consummated in 1845, by the voluntary exercise 
of the right of the Southern Annual Conferences and 
ministers and members to adhere to that communion, 
it has been an Evangelical Church reared on Scriptural 
foundations, and her ministers and members, with those 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have constituted 
one Methodist family, though in distinct ecclesiastical 
connections." 

Evidently there was no disposition at any time to 
deny that the Church South was a legitimate Church 
and an Evangelical Church, and, at any time, the 
Methodist Episcopal Church would have admitted that 
the Church South was a Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and from the old stock. No one ever disputed that. 
Further, the Methodist Episcopal Church would always 
concede that the Church South with itself constituted 
the same Methodist family. Neither was there any 
dispute as to the right of the ministers and members 
in the South to become a Church, or as to the fact that 



232 AMERICAN METHODISM 

the said ministers and members did, in 1845, of their 
own free will and accord organize the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. There was no dispute as to 
that but rather the emphasis was put on the fact that 
they themselves did it voluntarily. They did it and 
nobody else. 

The Methodist Episcopal commissioners freely con- 
ceded these things. Indeed these commissioners were 
conciliatory in the extreme, and so much so, that pos- 
sibly without fully perceiving its bearing, on one point 
they conceded too much. So anxious were they to 
reach harmony and fraternity that they apparently 
were blinded to an historical inaccuracy which was 
issued in the declaration of the joint commission. 

The report of this commission says : 

" As to the status of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and 
their coordinate relation as legitimate branches of 
Episcopal Methodism, each of said Churches is a 
legitimate branch of Episcopal Methodism in the 
United States, having a common origin in the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church organized in 1784." 

To say the least, this must have been an inadvert- 
ence on the part of the Methodist Episcopal com- 
missioners, for that is contrary to historic facts. As a 
matter of fact the Methodist Episcopal Church did not 
branch from anything in 1844 or 1845, though min- 
isters and members in the South by " the voluntary 
exercise " of their power did dissolve their connection 
with the Methodist Episcopal Church and organize the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Certainly the 
Methodist Episcopal Church did not branch from the 
Church South. 



THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 233 

The Methodist Episcopal Church is not a " branch " 
having its " origin in the Methodist Episcopal Church 
organized in 1784." It was organized in 1784 and is 
that very Methodist Episcopal Church "organized in 
1784," which, without a break in its continuity, has 
come down past 1844 and 1845 and down to the present 
moment. 

It is not a branch but the main stream. It is not a 
branch but the original tree with its roots reaching 
back to 1784. 

The branch is the Church South, and it branched off 
the main trunk, the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
1845, but the old tree continued to grow on. 

This idea of both Churches being branches of the 
original Church founded in 1784 is an evident error. 
Both are not branches from the same original stock. 
In an accommodated sense it may be said that both are 
parts of Episcopal Methodism but not that both are 
branches of the same original trunk. The Methodist 
Episcopal Church of 1784 is the Methodist Episcopal 
Church of the present time. One of the Churches 
branched from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
that one was the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
That is the branch. The other is the original trunk. 

It is to be observed that in the entire action of the 
joint commission there is no declaration in favor of the 
union of the two denominations. Union is not sug- 
gested or even considered in the report. 

This seems somewhat singular when it is remembered 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church or its repre- 
sentatives had so frequently suggested organic unity, 
but then it is also to be recalled that the Church South 
or its representatives had steadily declined to consider 



234 AMERICAN METHODISM 

organic union. So this may be another concession on 
the part of the Methodist Episcopal commissioners for 
unanimity in what the joint commission did report. 

Certain allusions in the report are against any idea 
of organic unity. Thus the phrase " though in distinct 
ecclesiastical connections," and the suggestion that the 
two Churches should move " two by two (like) the 
apostles." So in the paragraph of the report which 
says: 

" Astronomers tell us of dual-stars, revolving together 
in mutual relation and harmony, whose differing colors 
are so much the complement of each other as to produce 
a pure white light of exceeding brilliancy. The dual 
Churches of American Methodism will henceforth re- 
volve in mutual fellowship and harmony, so much the 
complement of one another, as together to produce the 
pure and blended light of Christian charity and fraternal 
love." 

The dual Churches, like the " dual-stars," " revolving 
together in mutual relation and harmony " would shine 
in and on the same field, blending their light and 
illuminating the same people, and, " Henceforth " the 
two bodies " may hail each other as from the auxiliary 
ranks of one great army. The only differences they 
will foster will be those friendly rivalries that spring 
from earnest endeavors to further to the utmost the 
triumphs of the Gospel of peace. Whatever progress 
is made by the one Church, or by the other, will 
occasion general joy. They will rejoice in each other's 
success as a common good; and, amid the thousand 
glorious memories of Methodism, they will go forward 
devoted to their one work of spreading Scriptural 
holiness over these lands." 



THE CAPE MAY COMMISSION 235 

But as there were dual-stars, the two bodies were 
not to be united into one and be one organic unity, but 
to be two Churches still. 

However, according to the report a new era had 
begun. They were to "compose their differences," 
and there was to be" no unf raternal Methodism," for, 
though distinct and independent, " these Churches are 
one in spirit, one in purpose, one in fellowship," and, 
though separate, yet, like double stars side by side, 
they would blend their rays, illuminate the same field, 
and shine upon the same people. A " new epoch " had 
dawned. 

With this outcome, and there was nothing impossible 
about it, the commission, notwithstanding an error or 
two, would have accomplished very much. Whether 
its prophecies were reliable the future would determine. 



xxm 

FRATERNITY IN PAN-METHODISTIC CON- 
FERENCES 

MANY official and unofficial expressions in 
favor of union with the Church South were 
uttered from time to time through the years 
by representative men of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

In the first Ecumenical Methodist Conference held 
in City Road Chapel, London, England, in the month 
of September, 1881, there were more or less positive 
suggestions pointing towards some form of unity. 

In the sermon of Bishop Matthew Simpson, preached 
at the opening of that Ecumenical Conference, he said : 

" There are those, however, who disparage Method- 
ism because it has had divisions, and they predict its 
early disintegration. For the same reason Christianity 
itself might be disparaged. The learned and eloquent 
Bossuet wrote a work against Protestantism on account 
of its variations — showing its weakness ; but, neverthe- 
less, in the last century, its progress has been more 
rapid than ever before. I am not sure that these divi- 
sions are an unmixed evil. They seem to me to have 
compensations also. With the different tastes and 
habits of men, I fancy that, through Churches some- 
what differently organized, and with different usages, 
more minds may be won for Christ. Certainly we may 
be provoked even to love and good works. It seems 
also to me that as God has showed us physical life in 

236 



PAN-METHODISTIC CONFERENCES 237 

almost every possible form, He means that we shall un- 
derstand that Christian life may exist and flourish in 
different organizations and usages. He would show us 
that there is no sacredness in mere ecclesiasticism. Or- 
ganization has its value, and every member of each 
Church should be true to his association ; yet the organ- 
ization is only the temple in which the life dwells. The 
organization is of man. The life is of Christ. "Were 
there but one organization with certain usages that 
prospered, we should think its forms and usages were 
in themselves sacred, we should grow narrow and 
bigoted. Our Church would be the Church, and all 
others would be schismatics. But when we see life in 
other Churches, we learn that the God of the Jew is the 
God of the Gentile also. We recognize a brother be- 
loved in every member of the family, and praise God 
for the infinitude of His grace. Quite possibly, also, in 
these separate organizations a little more flexibility may 
be gained, and, while holding fast to the Great Head 
of the Church, and contending earnestly for the faith 
once delivered to the saints, we may learn from each 
other something that may help us in conquering the 
world for Christ." 

Then referring specifically to Methodism, the Bishop 
continued : " As to the divisions in the Methodist fam- 
ily, there is little to mar the family likeness. For, first, 
there has been among the Wesleyan ranks no division 
as to doctrines. The clear statements in Mr. Wesley's 
sermons, and the doctrinal character of the hymns con- 
stantly sung, have aided in keeping us one. All over 
the world Methodist theology is a unit. Nor, secondly, 
is there any radical difference in usages. The class- 
meeting, the prayer-meeting, the love-feast, the watch- 



238 AMERICAN METHODISM 

night, though more or less strictly observed, are known 
everywhere in Methodism. So far as the membership 
is concerned, there is scarcely a single difference. Even 
in the Connexional bonds there is general likeness. The 
itinerant ministry, and the quarterly and annual con- 
ferences, exist in almost every branch. In the manner 
of legislation, and in the mode of affecting ministerial 
changes, there are some differences ; but the points of 
agreement are so numerous as compared with the differ- 
ences that we are emphatically one. We have no di- 
visions as to vestments, and candles, and genuflections. 
We have no High Church, or Low Church, or Broad 
Church. Differ as we may, there is something in all of 
us which the world recognizes." 

Picturing a beautiful grove he said : " Our Churches 
resemble these trees. The trunks near the earth stand 
stiffly and widely apart. The more nearly towards 
heaven they ascend, the closer and closer they come to- 
gether, until they form one beautiful canopy, under 
which the sons of men enjoy both shelter and happi- 
ness. Then I thought of that beautiful prayer of the 
Saviour, ' That they all may be one, that the world 
may know that Thou hast sent Me, and that Thou hast 
loved them as Thou hast loved Me.' In loving obedience 
to Christ's commands, and in earnest efforts for the ex- 
tension of His kingdom by doing good to men, is true 
oneness with Him to be found. Those who have the 
spirit of Christ, who go about always doing good, will 
be like-minded." 

Bishop Simpson had years before this indicated his 
desire for the organic union of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. 



PAN-METHODISTIC CONFERENCES 239 

In this Ecumenical Conference the idea of Christian 
oneness was emphasized rather than organic unity. 

The Eeverend Augustus C. George, D. D., of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church read an essay in which he 
said : " Whatever promotes Christian unity ought to 
be cultivated, and whatever is calculated to hinder it 
ought to be avoided. No false standards must be set 
up. Uniformity must not be demanded ; nor must it 
be concluded that any one is not in Christ because he is 
not with us. The visible unity exists because of the in- 
visible unity, and the invisible unity has its origin and 
inspiration in Christian experience. 

" So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every 
one members one of another. . . . The increase and 
manifestation of Christian unity ' among ourselves' 
refers, it may be presumed, to the maintenance of proper 
fraternal relations between the different branches of the 
world-wide Methodism. There are many Methodist or- 
ganizations — I think we will agree that there are too 
many — but there is only one Methodism. The family 
likeness is everywhere observable. . . . We must 
secure a confederation of Methodist Churches in all 
lands. ' The substantial unity of Methodism the world 
over,' says the London Methodist Recorder in a recent 
issue, ' is a providential fact of the profoundest signifi- 
cance, pregnant, probably, with the grandest results in 
the developments of the future; and the day that 
should witness the recognized oneness of all the 
Methodist Churches, not in organic union, but in 
fraternal alliance and confederation, would be one of 
the brightest that has ever dawned upon the earth.' 
There can be no doubt of it ; for when the world-wide 
Methodism becomes not only a consulting but also a 



240 AMERICAN METHODISM 

confederated Methodism, a long step will be taken 
towards an effective answer to our Saviour's high- 
priestly prayer for the visible oneness of His disciples 
on the earth. . . . It is not essential that we be- 
come organically united, nor is it desirable in every 
instance ; but it is important that we have spiritual 
communion, and that our fraternity be, in some way, 
embodied and emblazoned before the eyes of men. . . . 

" But great as is the need that there should be fewer 
Methodist bodies — and this need will be generally 
recognized — the necessity is still greater that amongst 
all Methodists there should be fraternity and confedera- 
tion. The way to this desirable result seems to be 
plainly indicated in the preliminary steps which led to 
the convening of this Ecumenical Conference. There 
have been, within certain limits and for given purposes, 
a representation and cooperation of the different 
Methodist organizations of all lands. ... If these 
committees could be enlarged and continued, without 
executive power or legislative authority, but charged 
with the duty of consultation and advisory supervision 
of all Methodist interests, what occasions for differences 
they might remove, and what blessed impulses they 
might impart to our one mighty, matchless, majestic 
Methodism! . . . 

" The chief thing needed is the spirit of fraternity, 
the life and love of Jesus, and a constant conviction 
that Methodism, however organized or distinguished, is 
a unity, and has one and the same work to accomplish." 

The Reverend Dr. Otis H. Tiffany, of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, said in the same Ecumenical Confer- 
ence : " Organic union, if it were attainable, would not 
be found flexible enough in practice for a Providential 



PAN-METHODISTIC CONFERENCES 241 

Church, which must enter every open door, and adapt 
its agencies to meet every pressing emergency. But 
unison in movement, and agreement in spirit, are cer- 
tainly within our reach. . . . The world counts 
separation antagonism, failing to see the inter-com- 
municating links which bind us to each other. It can- 
not see the relation of the subordinated denomination 
to the universal Church ; it does not distinguish between 
the infinite dignity of the rock of ages, and the 
temporary homes men build upon its giant breast. But 
we must show and prove to them, and convince them, 
that tabernacles for Moses and for Elias do not diminish 
the infinite glory of the transfigured Christ. This we 
can do more surely by manifesting the spirit of Christ 
in our separate organizations than by consolidations and 
absorptions, and the spirit of love shall prove the unity 
of the Churches. . . . This would be practical 
union maintaining the validity of the existing Churches, 
but enlarging the scope of their influence as hand-in- 
hand they compass the world — their * parish.' " 

These were utterances at the First Ecumenical Meth- 
odist Conference. Had it not been a Pan-Methodistic 
body possibly the expressions might have had a more 
direct reference to some of the American Churches, 
but they were sufficient to indicate the trend towards 
fraternity, the recognition of "invisible unity," and 
the desire for general cooperation, though there was 
little or no emphasis placed on organic unity. Doctor 
George, however, in his address commended the union 
of the Wesleyan Methodists and the New Connexion 
Methodists in Canada and also the steps taken towards 
the organic union of the different Methodist bodies in 
Australia. 



242 AMERICAN METHODISM 

About three years after the First Ecumenical Meth- 
odist Conference occurred the hundredth anniversary 
of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the United States of America which had been organ- 
ized in the Christmas season of 1784. It was decided 
to celebrate that event by a Centennial Methodist Con- 
ference and the Centennial Conference was held in the 
city of Baltimore, Maryland, December 9-17, 1884. 

This brought together representatives from different 
American Methodist Churches, especially from the 
Episcopal Methodisms, the chief of which were the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South. 

Their coming together in the Conference was calcu- 
lated to start thought as to why there was not the 
unity that existed in the Christmas Conference one 
hundred years before, and that, doubtless, must have 
raised a question as to the necessity of so many divi- 
sions in 1884. 

In the Pastoral Address " To the Methodist People 
in the United States and Canada," which was reported 
from a committee by the Eeverend Bishop Stephen M. 
Merrill, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, there oc- 
curs the following : 

" Not least among the evils we deplore as Methodists 
is the spirit of strife and division which, we are sorry 
to say, is not yet wholly eradicated from our Zion. 
Far be it from us to pronounce every division of the 
Church schismatical. There has been, doubtless, some 
providential ordering in the denominational organiza- 
tions of Christendom, yet the multiplication of separate 
Churches on trivial grounds is not to be encouraged. 
We are happy to believe that the period of dissensions 



PAN-METHODISTIC CONFERENCES 243 

is well-nigh over. We hail the dawn of the better day, 
and rejoice in the rising spirit of fraternity which 
promises much for the future success of the cause we 
love. From this time onward our principal rivalries 
should be to excel in good works. We congratulate 
our Canadian brethren upon the success which has at- 
tended their movement for uniting the forces of Meth- 
odism in the Dominion. May their highest anticipa- 
tions be fully realized. We of the States may not 
follow their example in consolidation, but we should 
not fall behind them in ' endeavoring to keep the unity 
of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.' " 

This was unanimously adopted. 

Another significant proposition was in a paper nu- 
merously signed by representatives of five Methodist 
bodies, and presented by the Reverend J. B. McFerrin, 
D. D., of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
Expressing the belief that the Centennial Conference 
had "strengthened the bond of brotherhood," the 
paper, among other things, had the following resolu- 
tions : 

" Resolved, That we respectfully commend to the 
bishops of the episcopal, and the chief officers of the 
non-episcopal, Methodist Churches represented in this 
Conference to consider whether informal conferences 
between them could not be held with profit from time 
to time concerning matters of common interest to their 
respective bodies. 

" Resolved, That we shall be greatly pleased to see 
these bonds of brotherhood and fellowship increased 
and strengthened more and more in the future. 

"Resolved, That any occasion that may bring our 
respective Churches together in convention for the 



244 AMERICAN METHODISM 

promotion of these objects will always be hailed with 
profound satisfaction." 

Bishop John M. Walden, of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, moved that the paper be adopted by a rising 
vote, which was done. 

Another fraternal incident was the following resolu- 
tion offered by Dr. H. B. Eidgaway, Dr. W. L. Hypes, 
and Bishop R. S. Foster, all of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church : 

" Resolved, That this Conference express its high 
gratification that the venerable Rev. J. B. McFerrin, 
D. D., Rev. Jesse Boring, D. D., Rev. James E. Evans, 
D. D., and Rev. Andrew Hunter, D. D., of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South ; and the Rev. Joseph 
M. Trimble, D. D., of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
who were members of the General Conference at New 
York in 1844, have been present with us and have con- 
tributed by their counsels and prayers to the harmony 
of our session." 

This was a graceful waving of the olive branch. In 
1844 the General Conference was unharmonious but 
there was harmony in this Conference of 1884, and the 
representatives of both sides of the ancient controversy 
met, and were greeted, as brothers beloved. Of course 
the resolution was adopted. 

The Second Ecumenical Methodist Conference was 
held in the city of "Washington, in the month of 
October, 1891. In this were the representatives of 
world-wide Methodism. 

Bishop Charles H. Fowler, of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, said : 

" There is but one law woven into the history of all 
peoples and filtered into the blood of all races and 



PAN-METHODISTIC CONFEKENCES 245 

molding the statesmanship of all ages, and that is this : 
The enduring nations have been great nations. Unity 
is strength. 

" This law holds with unabated power over every 
branch of the Christian Church. It holds over the 
power of Methodism. You and I may nurse our petty 
politics and cavil about the size of a button or the cut 
of a garment and amuse ourselves with the shades of 
our brigade plumes while the common enemies of our 
evangelism march through the breaks in our ranks, 
leaving us in our weakness to mourn over our defeats. 
But there is a wiser and a wider statesmanship within 
our reach, which shall close up all breaks in the ranks 
of Methodism, economize all power in her vast ex- 
penditures, utilize the helpfulness of kindly friends, and 
compel the respect of the skeptical classes." 

The Eeverend A. S. Hunt, D. D., of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, in his set address on "Christian 
Unity " said : " It seems to me, sir, that the followers 
of Christ of every name have occasion to deplore the 
fact that there is not more union — visible union — 
among them. While I must regard the union of all 
Christians in a single visible organization as impracti- 
cable, and perhaps undesirable, we surely ought to have 
far more union than now exists ; and more we should 
have if at the outset we would keep clearly in mind 
the distinction between union and unity. . . . 

" Let us, then, distinctly note that Christian union 
must be the outgrowth of Christian unity. Still 
further, Christian unity, as distinguished from Chris- 
tian union, has various phases and degrees. 

" There is a kind of unity which exists between two 
or more believers whose tastes and temperaments are 



246 AMEEICAN METHODISM 

similar. Such unity may, indeed, be Christian, but it 
grows largely out of natural affinities. Again, we have 
a kind of unity which exists between believers who 
entertain kindred views concerning doctrines and 
modes of worship and church polity. This also is 
Christianity in part, but not wholly so. Once more, 
there is a unity of a higher and richer type which 
gives a subordinate place to matters of taste and 
temperament, to modes of worship and forms of 
church polity, and to minor points of doctrine, and 
consists in the blessed fact that believers are one in 
Christ Jesus; for we are, indeed, the body of Christ 
while we are members in particular. But, sir, there is 
something higher still. . . . 

" If we ever need to remember the power of the 
supernatural it is when we are attempting to master 
this question of Christian unity. Turning to the Ke- 
deemer's prayer, we find Him asking ' that they may 
all be one ; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in 
Thee, that they also may be in us.' The Authorized 
Version reads : ' May be one in us,' but the Kevised 
Version very properly omits the word one, as it is not 
in the text of the original. That they may be in us ; 
that they may, by the help of God's grace, apprehend 
the unity of God, and dwell in that unity. "We, even 
we, may be encompassed by the divine unity. When 
we enter this inner shrine, this holy of holies, and verily 
dwell in God, the question of our unity with all who 
truly love Christ finds its solution. There is no other 
solution which will bear all tests and endure forever. 
Here is the real secret of all genuine Christian unity. 

" And now, sir, it is time for me to say that when 
this unity is apprehended it will ever be seeking to ex- 



PAN-METHODISTIC CONFERENCES 247 

press itself in union. If we each and all were really 
dwelling in God it would be easy to recognize our 
family relationship, and manifest our delight in each 
other's prosperity. ... If God will breathe upon 
us this spirit of unity I do not doubt that when 
our next Ecumenical Conference shall convene, while 
the aggregate membership of the Methodism of the 
wide world will be largely increased, the delegates 
assembled will not represent twenty-nine different 
Methodist organizations." 

The Reverend C. F. Reid, of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, said: "There are some things which 
we can do a great deal better by being more closely 
united : We do not presume at this time to ask you for 
an organic union, either on the mission field or among 
the Churches at home. That will come, we hope, in 
God's good time." 

At the same session the Reverend E. E. Hoss, D. D., of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, said : " It is 
my distinct and deliberate conviction that our Method- 
ist denominational divisions in America have been a 
great advantage to us. It is not my habit, Mr. Presi- 
dent, to feel one thing in my heart and speak another 
thing with my lips. An organic unity of the different 
branches of Methodism in America is a problem which, 
if not impossible of solution, is at least one of tremen- 
dous difficulty. Leaving all other questions and all 
other considerations out of view, the size of the Meth- 
odist family in this country makes the problem of or- 
ganic unity one of great difficulty. I have room 
enough in my heart for all of my brethren and sisters 
and their children, but I have not room enough for 
them in my house. Any Church has the right to main- 



248 AMERICAN METHODISM 

tain its distinct denominational existence as long as it 
stands for some vital aspect of Christian truth or some 
important feature of ecclesiastical economy, or as long 
as its existence is determined and required by external 
circumstances of the need and binding effect, of which 
it itself must be the judge. 

" All movements towards unity must proceed upon 
the supposition of the absolute Christian equality of all 
the parties concerned. The size of the Church does not 
entitle it to any special consideration. The smaller 
bodies are equally to be consulted, and their opinions 
to have equal weight according to their worth. And 
then, if unity is to be secured, the different Churches 
must at once and forever stop their maneuvering for 
position as against one another. 

" I do not hesitate to stand in my place here and say 
that when any Methodist denomination goes into a lit- 
tle village in which there is already a Methodist Church 
of another denomination, and builds a house and sends 
a pastor, it makes it absolutely unnecessary for the 
devil to be personally present in that village. 

" I belong, Mr. President, to one of the border Con- 
ferences, and I know T what I am speaking about. I do 
not for one single moment think that the Church of 
which I am a member has been utterly faultless in this 
matter, nor would I dare to say that other Methodist 
denominations have been utterly faultless. We have all 
been wrong. We ought to stop our nonsense and our 
unchristian conduct. 

" If, by and by, an external organic unity comes, all 
right, let it come ; but there is no immediate prospect 
of it, and if I ever see it at all I expect to see it from 
the heights of heaven." 



PAN-METHODISTIC CONFERENCES 249 

The Reverend A. Coke Smith, D. D., of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, South, read an essay on " Chris- 
tian Cooperation " in which he said : " Unity is not 
sameness, and the highest unity in purposes so far- 
reaching as those of the Gospel requires the greatest 
variety of endowment and work, and a mobility in form 
that can adapt itself to its ever-changing environment, 
and speak in word and deed to each age and nation in 
its own tongue. . . . The call for closer union 
among the Churches and for cooperation in all Christian 
work coming up from all directions is significant. 
. . . The movement of the Christian bodies towards 
each other is not a spurt of enthusiasm or a dream of 
visionaries. . . . There is certainly no purpose to 
attempt the organic unity of all the Churches. Such 
could only be in name and never in fact. Geography 
and climate, race, temperament, political institutions, 
the special needs of special times, all forbid the effort at 
uniformity in government and forms of worship did 
not common sense declare such uniformity unneces- 
sary. . . . The organic union of all the Churches 
and the adoption of like forms in worship and govern- 
ment would prevent the adjustment of the Church to cir- 
cumstances and hinder the advancement of the Gospel." 

The Reverend T. J. Ogburn, of the Methodist Protes- 
tant Church, said : " By Christian cooperation we do 
not mean the organic unity of the Christian Church. 
It is rather the concrete expression of the Church's in- 
visible but real spiritual unity. It is a practical unity ; 
the best unity possible at present, and the easiest and 
speediest stepping-stone to that ideal organic unity for 
which so many have hoped and prayed, as yet in vain." 

The Reverend E. L. Southgate, of the Methodist 



250 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Episcopal Church, South, in his address, remarked: 
" Now it occurs to me that the organic union so em- 
phatically proposed by some of the brethren might 
prove to be a merely outward relation. The true union 
is a union that is based upon the Sermon on the Mount, 
and that has for its working plan the thirteenth chapter 
of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians." 

The Reverend Bishop Randolph S. Foster, D.D., 
LL. D., of the Methodist Episcopal Church, followed up 
these addresses by remarks urging organic union, and 
especially between the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Among other 
things he said : " If organic union were possible there 
must be no question, it seems to me, in any mind that 
the power of this Methodism of ours would be tenfold 
if it were possible for us to bring ourselves into such 
close relations to each other as not only to cooperate, 
but to organize and systematize the work of this great 
Methodism of America, so that we should waste none 
of our force, but, on the contrary, utilize every bit of 
it for the salvation of the world. 

"I do not know how soon that time will come. I 
have been praying for it for twenty -five years. I have 
been waiting and longing for twenty-five years. I rep- 
resent a great Church — the great fragment or fraction, 
the greatest fraction of Methodism in America — and I 
am certain that the sentiment and the feeling of my 
Church for at least twenty-five years has been longing 
for the time to come when something could be done 
that would harmonize the movements of these great 
Methodist bodies in the United States, and when, as it 
seems to me, sir, the walls of separation might fall and 
entirely disappear. 



PAN-METHODISTIC CONFERENCES 251 

"For myself I know of no reason — I can see no 
reason — I am unable to find a reason — why that great 
and honored branch of our Methodism, once united 
with us, once a part of our body, dear to us yet, dear as 
it ever was, cherished and honored and loved as they 
were when it was corporate with us — I say I can see no 
reason why these two great fragments of a once united 
Methodism should remain longer separate. Others 
may see reasons. I am unable to find them. When I 
go before God, when I consult my conscience, when I 
think of the influence that might arise from our union, 
I can find no reason why at least we should not so far 
be eye to eye as to come together like brothers well- 
beloved, and shake each other by the hand and look 
each other in the eye and talk to each other out of the 
heart and pray together before God that He will soon 
send upon us wisdom, so that in some way the deplored 
separation might be healed, and that united together, 
we might take possession, as we are able to do, of the 
North and of the South of this great land." 

The Pastoral Address of the Second Ecumenical 
Methodist Conference had this to say on the question of 
general union between the various Methodistic bodies : 

" We rejoice to recognize the substantial unity which 
exists among the various Methodist Churches. Its firm 
basis is a common creed. We are all faithful to the 
simple, Scriptural, and generous theology which God, 
through the clear intellect and loving heart of John 
Wesley, restored to his Church. The intellectual 
movement and the social changes of our time may have 
led to some change in the form of expression, or some 
shifting of the emphasis of our teaching, but they have 
not led us even to reconsider that living theology 



252 AMERICAN METHODISM 

which has abundantly proved itself upon our pulses. 
Indeed it would be strange if, while other Churches 
are drawing towards it, we should have departed from 
it. And there are other grounds of unity. We are 
proud of the same spiritual ancestry ; we sing the same 
holy hymns ; our modes of worship are similar ; and 
what is most important of all, the type of religious ex- 
perience is fundamentally the same throughout the 
Methodist world. Our ecclesiastical principles are not 
so various as the forms in which they are accidentally 
embodied. Rejoicing in these things, we think that the 
time has come for a closer cooperation of the Method- 
ist Churches, both at home and abroad, which shall 
prevent waste of power and unhallowed rivalry ; while 
before the eyes of many of us has passed the delightful 
vision of a time when, in each land where it is planted, 
Methodism shall become, for every useful purpose, one, 
and the Methodism of the world shall be a close and 
powerful federation of Churches for the spread of the 
kingdom of Christ." 



XXIV 

BOOKS ON THE QUESTION OF UNION BETWEEN 

THE CHURCH SOUTH AND THE METHOD- 

1ST EPISCOPAL CHUECH 

AS might have been expected from the degree of 
general interest in the question of union 
between the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and, particularly, 
from the special interest of individuals in the question, 
the literature on the subject has consisted not merely in 
printed addresses, in articles in various periodicals, and 
in the resolutions and other formulations of deliberative 
and legal bodies, but also in the issue of books of con- 
siderable importance and of more or less permanence. 

The Keverend Erasmus Q. Fuller, D. D., of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, who for years resided 
in the South, was the editor of The Methodist Ad- 
vocate and was a member of several General Confer- 
ences of his Church. He wrote a book bearing the title 
"An Appeal to the Eecords: A Yindication of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, Its Policy and Proceed- 
ings towards the South," which was published in 1876. 
This was a reply to a work entitled the " Disruption of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church," of which the 
Keverend Edward *%. Myers, D. D., a prominent min- 
ister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and for 
some years editor of the Southern Christian Advocate, 
was the author. 

253 



254: AMERICAN METHODISM 

The full title which Doctor Myers gave his book is 
" The Disruption of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
1844-1846, comprising a Thirty Years' History of the 
Relations of the Two Methodisms," and in the preface 
the author says : " This discussion comes opportunely 
to the members of the Church South, lest they be 
hurried away, by an ardent temperament that responds 
impulsively to the proffer of fraternity, from a con- 
sideration of those principles by which alone they can 
vindicate their past history and their permanent separate 
organization." 

The point in this observation will be seen when it is 
recalled that efforts were being made to establish fra- 
ternal relations between the two Churches and that the 
meeting of the two commissions was soon to take place 
at Cape May at which meeting Doctor Myers was one 
of the representatives from the Church South. 

Doctor Fuller took exceptions to the very title of 
Doctor Myers' book as containing " erroneous assump- 
tions." Among these errors Doctor Fuller says : " The 
first is in the words, < Disruption of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church,' as it is claimed in the work, by a full, 
distinct, purposed, and binding 'contract,' into two 
parts of the one Methodist Episcopal Church, equally 
the legitimate and legal representatives of the original 
body. This position of the author is not true ; there- 
fore this portion of the title of his book, as explained 
by himself, contains a false assumption. The second is 
in the words, ' The Two Methodisms.' This term is 
used by Doctor Myers to show that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, are equally the representatives of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church which once was, but which does not 



BOOKS ON UNION 255 

now exist, it having been ' disrupted ' into these two 
branches — which is not true, as the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the original body from which the Southern 
Church separated, now exists in name, and in fact, in 
entirety, having never been * disrupted ' in such 
manner." 

In referring to the work of Doctor Fuller, Dr. D. D. 
Whedon, editor of the Methodist Quarterly Review^ 
remarks that "Doctor Fuller has here given Doctor 
Myers' book a very thorough and annihilating analysis." 

About ten years after the publication of the books 
of Doctor Myers and Doctor Fuller a Southern preacher 
lifted up his voice and used his pen in the interest of 
union between the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

He was the Keverend John H. Brunner, D. D., a 
minister of the Church South, and a man of prominence 
in his denomination and his section, as will appear from 
the positions which he held. Among other things he 
was the President of Hiwassee College, in East Ten- 
nessee, and a writer of some note. 

Doctor Brunner favored a union of some kind be- 
tween his denomination and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, but seems to have been in advance of his 
Church of that day on this subject. 

From time to time he published articles in favor of 
union in the Church papers and later published a book 
entitled " The Union of the Churches " in which he in- 
corporated many of the articles which he had written 
for the periodicals. 

The general character of the work was an urgent 
plea for such a union, the necessity for which he based 
on various grounds. 



256 AMERICAN METHODISM 

In this work he quotes Southern men who were in 
favor of union. Thus he cites the Reverend John H. 
Parrott of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as 
saying : " The two great bodies of Episcopal Methodism 
in our own country ought to be united on some basis." 
This was in an article which was printed in the Knox- 
ville Journal, of January 4, 1886. 

Referring to the action of the 1874 General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
which declared that "the reasons for the separate 
existence of these two branches of Methodism are such 
as to make a corporate union undesirable and im- 
practicable," Doctor Brunner remarks : 

"This then is the avowed policy of the Southern 
Methodist Church ; the policy of the Northern Church 
being directly the opposite. On these two opposing 
lines the forces of the two Methodisms are now ar- 
rayed ! 

" Really, it is much like the Confederate War. The 
great preponderance of men and money is with the 
North. The sentiment of the world is on that side, 
as well as the patriotic sentiment of the country, 
among outsiders and other religionists. Then there is 
a * union sentiment' inside the Southern Church, as 
there was inside the Confederacy — a constantly grow- 
ing force. Add to all this ' the army of occupation ' — 
the Northern network of conferences, districts, circuits, 
stations, schools, Sunday-schools, families — a member- 
ship reaching nearly up to that of the Southern Church 
in many places ! . . . 

" Yes, the Northern Church is here, and constantly 
adding to her resources. The Southern Church is cir- 
cumscribed — dwarfed and segregative or exclusive, with 



BOOKS ON UNION 257 

accelerating defections to the union side ! — as doomed 
to succumb as was the Confederacy after the battle of 
Gettysburg ! The old bosses are as fixed in their pur- 
pose as was Jeff Davis, despite the advice of Alex. 
Stephens. . . . 

" The Northern Methodists erred in 1848 in rejecting 
fraternity, and in voting in the face of universal senti- 
ment on the solemn league known as the Plan of Sep- 
aration — and bitter has been the penalty ; and now 
Southern Methodism errs by spurning proffers of union, 
thus offending universal public sentiment. Northern 
Methodism had the good fortune to see her mistake, 
and the grace to undo it by act and by declaration in 
the Cape May Commission settlement. Will the South- 
ern Church be equally fortunate and wise in abandon- 
ing its untenable ground ? . . . 

" Hard sayings and hard doings among Methodists 
are not in place, and never have been. But some pal- 
liation may be found in the case of our Northern Meth- 
odist friends. Did they not come down, some 300,000 
strong, in 1861-65 ? Did they not find the Southern 
Methodists arrayed against the government — some at 
home praying for Jeff Davis, and others in arms firing 
upon the flag and the hoys in blue f There may have 
been exceptions — and there were — 'few and far be- 
tween.'' Overzealous our Northern brethren may have 
been to teach the negroes (and preach to them in their 
alienation from Southern Methodism) and to help efface 
the fearful illiteracy in the Southern States. But they 
met no aid and comfort from Southern Methodists ; but 
instead, the most unrelenting opposition ! Faults there 
be ; but they are not all within the pale of any one 
Church, any more than all fools belong to any one po- 



258 AMERICAN METHODISM 

litical party ! There are two sides to every silver six- 
pence ; and there are two sides to the question of the 
Southern work of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
The Southern Methodism lost its hold on negro confi- 
dence and of other confidence as well. The union of 
the two Methodisms would give the united Methodism 
access to all again. . . . 

" A political party, that is coterminous with the na- 
tion, acts as a balance wheel in the machinery of gov- 
ernment. But sectional parties work mischief. The 
seclusive policy of Southern Methodism is fatal to its 
perpetuity. Its great need is union and diffusion, or 
expansion." 

These were strong words from a minister of the 
Church South who had been influenced by Southern in- 
terpretations and who dwelt in a Southern environ- 
ment. 

In 1892 the Eeverend W. P. Harrison, D. D., of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, wrote and pub- 
lished a book entitled " Methodist Union." 

Doctor Harrison in his work opposed the organic 
union of his own Church with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and for this opposition he gives several reasons, 
which may be briefly phrased as follows : 

First, the union would make a very large ecclesias- 
tical body. 

Second, the danger in such a large body of partisan 
politics. 

Third, the representative body would either be of 
unwieldy proportions, or the ratio of representation 
would be put at such a figure that the representation 
would not be fairly representative. 

Fourth, that the geographical sections of the two 



BOOKS ON UNION 259 

Churches are so different that the individuals, when 
brought together in one body, would not agree among 
themselves because of these sectional influences. 

Fifth, that the Church South is nearly as unanimous 
at the present time as it was in 1844, while it is also 
prosperous and contented and simply desires to be let 
alone. 

While Doctor Harrison rejects organic unity, he 
closes his book with this alternative suggestion : 

" Speaking as an individual, the writer would prefer 
to see four grand divisions of Episcopal Methodism in 
America, the Eastern, Southern, Western, and the Col- 
ored General Conferences, the whole Church bound to- 
gether by an advisory Council, representing Conference 
districts, and limited to the discussion of interests com- 
mon to all, without authority over any. Such federa- 
tion we believe to be feasible and desirable." 

Further he says : " For the present, and as far into 
the future as it has been given us to see, the interests 
and welfare of our Southern Methodism imperatively 
demand the jurisdictional independence of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South. 

" The subject of organic union of all the Episcopal 
Methodist bodies possesses a charm for many persons. 
But there are so many difficulties in the way of such a 
consummation that it is useless to discuss the question 
in any proposition that looks to the absorption of ec- 
clesiastical government under one General Conference 
jurisdiction." 

Then he adds : " There is, however, a more excellent 
way," and gives in detail his plan for a number of geo- 
graphical divisions and a " Council " which would " have 
no legislative or judicial functions, but to be an advisory 



260 AMERICAN METHODISM 

body only," as he had previously said, " without au- 
thority over any." 

This seemed to be the Southern idea of union in that 
day. 

In the same year, Bishop Stephen M. Merrill, D. D., 
LL. D., of the Methodist Episcopal Church, brought 
out his book on " Organic Union." 

Bishop Merrill occupied a position of peculiar fitness 
for the preparation of such a work and his early expe- 
riences formed a background from which his expres- 
sions on the subject of union came with a peculiar force. 
As he tells us in his " Introductory " written in Decem- 
ber, 1891 : 

" He entered the ministry the year the division of 
the Church occurred, and through a door indirectly 
opened as the result of division, and afterwards spent 
some years on the debated ground, often coming in 
contact with the bitterest feelings engendered in the 
strife on the border; so that his recollections of the 
old debates are vivid, and sometimes sad. In his min- 
istry in the times of slavery he has met organized mobs 
in his congregations ; has been arraigned before mass- 
meetings of regulators, with a view to his expulsion 
from the state ; has been presented to the grand jury 
for indictment under special legislation designed to send 
him to the State's Prison ; has been threatened with 
bludgeons, tar-buckets, and bullets ; and, therefore, he 
does not forget the former days, when to represent the 
Methodist Episcopal Church on Southern soil was at 
once a peril and an honor. After all, he bears no ill- 
feeling towards Southern people or Churches, but 
wishes and prays, not only for fraternity, but also for 
ultimate organic union." 



BOOKS ON UNION 261 

This reveals the conditions of antagonism that existed 
over the slave border when in those times property, 
person, and life itself were in peril in the land of free 
speech and of free Churches, when Methodist Episcopal 
ministers preached to their own congregations within 
the bounds of their own Conferences, and, yet, this 
author who went through all this and on up to the 
episcopate has " no ill-feeling towards Southern people 
or Churches, but wishes and prays, not only for fra- 
ternity, but also for ultimate organic union." 

His views in favor of "ultimate organic union" are not 
an impulse of a late moment. He tells the reader that 
" He is not a recent convert to the views he now holds," 
and that " What he believes to-day he has believed for 
more than a score of years, and his convictions have 
grown with advancing life." 

Defining the issue, he says, " By the union of Meth- 
odist Churches is meant the consolidation of all the 
denominations of Methodism in the United States in 
one governmental jurisdiction " ; but the chief purpose 
of the author is " to study the question of reunion in 
relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South." 

In reference to this question Bishop Merrill says: 
" There is little probability that organic union with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, will ever be con- 
summated without a pretty thorough sifting of the 
old issues." This he thinks is necessary because in 
the Church South there has been generally a mis- 
interpretation of the historic facts in regard to the 
cause of the separation by the Southern Conferences 
in 1845 and a misunderstanding of the action of the 
General Conference of 1844 and also a failure to 



262 AMERICAN METHODISM 

appreciate the decisions of the General Conference 
of 1848. 

As to the assertion that slavery was not the " cause " 
but only the " occasion " of the division of the Church, 
Bishop Merrill maintains that : " Slavery, by its arro- 
gance, rendered the agitation unavoidable. Slavery 
was therefore both the ' cause' and the 'occasion' of 
the division," that " slavery was the ' cause,' and that 
the action of the General Conference in the case of 
Bishop Andrew was the ' occasion ' of that sad event." 

Eeferring to the action of the General Conference of 
1844, the author says: "The famous so-called 'Plan 
of Separation ' was not a ' plan of separation ' at all. It 
had no such purpose. . . . The General Confer- 
ence of 1844 neither divided the Church, nor author- 
ized its division. ... It did not induce that act, 
nor authorize it, nor approve it ; but anticipated it, and 
sought to provide against avoidable evils." But " the 
conditions were not met, and it never was lawfully 
carried into effect," while " The decision of the court 
(on the Book Concern) was reached after the consum- 
mation of the division, and largely on the ground of 
equity, which was scarcely disputed." 

As to a " line " Bishop Merrill holds that the Church 
South " has gone outside of the limits originally im- 
posed upon herself," and "that after fixing the line 
that was supposed to restrict their labors to the slave- 
holding states, our Southern brethren did not keep 
themselves to their own side of the line." 

Notwithstanding all these things and differences of 
opinion on the two sides, the author insists that union 
is possible and that efforts should be made to bring it 
about. He says : " With the great mass of the mem- 



BOOKS ON UNION 263 

bership of the Methodist Episcopal Church there is 
scarcely any consciousness of alienation. . . . Not 
one in a thousand has the slightest prejudice to over- 
come in according to the members of the Southern 
Church the fullest recognition and fellowship. When 
their attention is called to it, they simply wonder why 
there is a Southern Church. It can be assumed, there- 
fore, that our people are ready for the reunion when- 
ever it shall be brought about ; and it is equally true 
that they are not fretted because of the delay." . . . 
" As the difficulties to be overcome are neither few nor 
small the warmest friends of the movement will be 
the most patient. No one will look for the consum- 
mation in a brief space of time. If it be accom- 
plished within a generation, it may be accepted as 
an achievement of wise diplomacy and royal states- 
manship, sustained by the noblest devotion to a cause 
which concerns the glory of God and the welfare of 
His kingdom." 

As to the conditions of union he says : " All agree 
that if union comes it must be reached upon a basis 
honorable to all, and as the result of an inward per- 
suasion which is so nearly universal as to be posi- 
tively domination. Every one will concede that the 
movement, in order to be either desirable or successful, 
must be as nearly spontaneous as is possible— the out- 
going of a conviction rooted in Christian sentiment 
and controlling the consciousness of duty. When such 
preparation comes, union will follow as naturally as 
ripened fruit drops to the earth." 

The period of a generation which Bishop Merrill 
suggested has expired, and he himself has passed away, 
and yet the organic union has not come and the condi- 



264 AMERICAN METHODISM 

tions he indicated have not fully ripened, but this does 
not prove that the process is not going on. 

In the same year, 1892, Bishop Randolph S. Foster, 
D. D., LL. D., of the Methodist Episcopal Church, wrote 
and published his book on " Union of Episcopal Meth- 
odisms." He appears not to have known of the pur- 
pose of Doctor Harrison and Bishop Merrill to write 
on this subject, and his work was written before their 
books appeared, and so he notes : " Since writing the 
preceding pages (the body of his book) Bishop Merrill's 
book on ' Organic Union ' and Doctor Harrison's book 
on ' Methodist Union ' have appeared." 

Bishop Merrill, while he wrote particularly of the 
union of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, had in his treatment 
" The Organic Union of American Methodism " cover- 
ing all the Methodistic bodies in the United States, but 
Bishop Foster limits himself to the " Union of Episco- 
pal Methodisms," and further restricts himself to the 
question of organic union between two of the Episcopal 
Methodisms, namely, the Methodist Episcopal Church 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, though he 
has observations on the "Consolidation of sects" in 
general. 

In his Introduction, Bishop Foster says : 

" With respect to the practicability of the union of 
these two bodies, and with respect to the proper way 
of approaching it, and the necessary preliminary steps, 
there is room for difference of judgment and a demand 
for the exercise of patience and forbearance. . . . 
Patience, not haste — candor, not harshness — simplicity 
of aim, will lead us to the true goal, whether it be or 
not be the one we aim at." 



BOOKS ON UNION 265 

In regard to the question of organic unity, he says : 
" There are three possible views : first, that organic 
unity is impracticable, and therefore they should re- 
main as they are ; second, that some adjustment other 
than that which at present exists should be sought, but 
not organic unity ; third, that the two bodies should 
unite and become one." 

The reasons for the several views he considers and 
presents in detail. Among other things he observes 
that : " The idea has been several times mooted of hav- 
ing two or three Episcopal white Methodisms on 
American soil, each assigned a geographical division 
of the country — one eastern, one western, one southern 
— the three sustaining federated relations similar to 
those of the states in the federal Union." 

This, though plausible, he rejects absolutely, and 
says that, though "simple in appearance, it involves 
such complexities as to make it unworkable, or, if 
workable, beset with manifold difficulties. What hope 
is there that the sections could be induced thus to go 
asunder? . . . There is no probability that any 
such scheme will ever be adopted or even gravely en- 
tertained." 

Then he gives various reasons in favor of the third 
view, namely, the uniting of the two bodies into one, 
and finally brings the reader " face to face with a re- 
maining perplexity, namely, how to effect the union." 
Here " arise many questions and phases of difficulty," 
and to meet these he favors a commission to be created 
by each of the two General Conferences " to prepare a 
platform of union " to be duly submitted. 

In his work Bishop Foster raises the questions: 
" What should be the relations of the white Method- 



266 AMERICAN METHODISM 

isms to the colored Methodisms? and along with it, 
"What should be the relations of the colored members 
of our Methodism to the united colored Episcopal 
Methodism?" 

Answering his own question he says : " If it may be 
for the reason that organic unity, all things considered, 
would not be for the best, then it may not only not be 
a sin to remain separate, but it would be a wrong to 
effect union if it were possible." 

As to the relations of the white Episcopal Method- 
isms to the united colored Episcopal Methodisms if it 
should come to be an actualized fact, he says : " The 
two bodies should remain separate under existing facts, 
or that, whatever may be wise for the future, the time 
has not come for organic unity, if it shall ever come." 

Again he says : " We proceed on the theory of a 
union of all the colored Episcopal Methodisms in one 
great organism." . . . " Organic unity with the col- 
ored Episcopal Methodisms is a question not even to be 
mooted, and in fact is not mooted," and so Bishop 
Foster favored the combination of all Colored Episco- 
pal Methodists, including those who were in the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, into a united and separate 
body, thus making a White Episcopal Methodism and 
a Colored Episcopal Methodism, independent of each 
other. 



XXV 
FEATEENAL ADDEESSES ON UNION 

IN the General Conferences of both the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, from 1874 and 1876 there have 
been fraternal addresses by representatives from both 
denominations and in these addresses there have been 
allusions not only to fraternity between the two 
Churches but also references more or less direct to the 
question of organic unity. 

In 1882 there appeared before the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 
Nashville, Tennessee, a fraternal delegate from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, who had been born on 
slave soil and who was for years in close contact with 
preachers and people of the Church South. He was 
the scholarly and eloquent Henry Bascom Eidgaway, 
D. D., named after Doctor Bascom, who became a 
bishop of the Church South. Doctor Eidgaway be- 
cause of his early environments and his high standing 
in his own Church was peculiarly well fitted to voice 
the fraternal feelings of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

It was on the tenth day of May, 1882, that he deliv- 
ered his address to the Church South General Confer- 
ence. We present some extracts from that noted ad- 
dress. He said : 

" I was born in the Methodist Episcopal Church just 

267 



268 AMERICAN METHODISM 

before the division of 1844-1845 which separated it 
into two great families. Nurtured in that cradle of 
Methodism, Baltimore City, equipped for the ministry 
in the old historic Conference of which that city is the 
center, I was accustomed from childhood to hear the 
traditions of the worthy founders of the Church in the 
South, as well as in the North and West. The names 
of some of the devout, self-denying, and mighty men 
who planted Methodism in your fair land were as fa- 
miliar as household words. Such was the power and 
popularity of one of these that my father, a plain 
farmer on the eastern shore of Maryland, after listen- 
ing to his transcend ant eloquence, went home and 
changed the name of his infant son from John Wesley 
to Henry Bascom. There may be nothing in a name. 
But I can say from personal recollections that the first 
thoughts of preaching the Gospel were awakened in 
that lad's mind when, as he was nearing his teens, 
godly men put their hands on his head and said : ' If 
he only makes as good and great a man as Mr. Bascom.' 
The Church could produce but one Doctor Bascom in 
the remarkable mental qualities with which nature had 
endowed him ; but in spiritual grace God calls all to 
the highest attainments. The dream that was started, 
that somehow there was an obligation put upon me to 
be something, I very naturally conceived would receive 
its truest realization in the vocation of him whose 
name I bore. . . . 

" Then, too, after the division, as a boy preacher on 
the border, in Virginia, I fought you. That is, I de- 
fended my Church by doing the work of an evangelist 
and building it up, all the harder, because the Southern 
preachers were around. I thought and felt then that 



FEATERNAL ADDRESSES 269 

these Southern brethren were splendid fellows, and 
how I would love them if they would only keep on 
their own side and let my territory and people alone ; 
and I could see the need of but one Methodism, espe- 
cially as fat and flourishing as it was in the regions of 
the Shenandoah and old Loudoun. 

" Ah, sir, those days were but as the innocent and 
harmless encounter of boys playing at fighting, com- 
pared with the dark and stormy days which, alas ! too 
soon came upon us. The war-cloud passed over us, 
with its battles of fire and hail, sweeping down in its 
terrible course hundreds and thousands of the vigorous 
men and valiant youths of both sections of our common 
country. In the strife the Methodists, North and South, 
East and West, true to the instinctive earnestness char- 
acteristic of their religion, did their utmost in deadly 
array. With tongue, and pen, and sword on either side, 
they contested every inch of ground and every title of 
principle and law. But the war over, the bow of peace 
once again spanned the dark cloud as it receded. 

" Happily for us, the brave men that fell in blood 
were not all that fell— slavery, the source of our dis- 
cord, also fell and was buried ; and not only 5,000,000 
of slaves rose into liberty, but the nation, and no por- 
tion of it more than the Southern, rose into freedom 
and was delivered from the most difficult social, moral, 
and political problem which ever perplexed statesmen 
or burdened the consciences of good men. 

" From the hour when national peace was established 
and the broad and equal guardianship of the Union was 
again thrown over all the states and territories of our 
country, there has been a growing desire among Meth- 
odists North and South that the old bonds of a former 



270 AMERICAN METHODISM 

love and amity should he reasserted. There has been an 
effort to forgive and to forget the differences of the 
past, and indeed to overlook as far as possible the things 
in which we yet differ, and to draw closer together on 
the ground in which we agree, and where we can stand 
and act as brethren. I need not rehearse the successive 
steps by which we have been approaching each other. 
The fraternal salutations exchanged through official 
representatives in both our General Conferences; the 
devout, spiritual reunions at Round Lake and other 
camp-meetings ; the legal settlement of the Cape May 
Commission, duly ratified by our General Conference at 
Cincinnati ; and, finally, the moral influence of the 
grand Ecumenical Council in London ; these, the more 
marked and formal agencies, to say nothing of the less 
conspicuous and silent, but not the less efficient, proc- 
esses of individual, social, and commercial intercourse, 
have been carrying forward the work of healing and 
reconciliation, until we feel that we are very near to 
each other, and that there are more things in which we 
agree than those in which we differ, and that those 
things in which we agree are far more important than 
those in which we differ. . . . 

" As I stand before you with a message of love and 
peace, I am bound to rejoice with you in the rich herit- 
age which you possess in common with ourselves as 
Episcopal Methodists. Our genesis is the same. 
' Whose are the fathers ? ' The memory of the men 
who founded Methodism in the New World is yours as 
ours. Their work is at the foundation and in the super- 
structure of your Church ; their history is in your 
books ; they live in your hearts. Like the odor of 
sweet ointment poured forth, their names everywhere 



FRATERNAL ADDRESSES 271 

penetrate the atmosphere North, South, East, and West, 
and the perfume that they exhale cannot be confined to 
any section of the country or branch of their suc- 
cessors. . . . 

" Mr. Chairman, as I talk on and feel the memories 
of our primitive past stealing upon me and think of the 
days when we were all one ; as I feel the memories of 
this later charity which, like the rising tide, is sweeping 
in upon us, I not only rejoice in fraternization, true and 
heartfelt, which we this day realize, as in the name of 
bishops, 16,000 ministers, travelling and local, well-nigh 
2,000,000 members and 1,500,000 children and youth, I 
shall shake hands with you and the hundreds of thou- 
sands who stand around you, but I devoutly pray that 
we may he drawn yet closer and closer together, until 
differences shall vanish in the beautiful oneness of 
American Methodism. 

" There is a word I would like to speak, but perhaps 
I dare not. My Church has not authorized me to speak 
it. You, my hosts, may not be ready for it, and I 
must not violate your hospitality. It is not a big 
word, nor a long one, but my heart is full of it. Time 
will bring it. There are some things which cannot 
well be hurried, and this is one of them. But this 
question of the Organic Union of Episcopal Methodism, 
to say nothing of other forms of Methodism on our 
continent, is one which some men are thinking about 
and strongly desiring. There are some subjects, says 
Goethe, which, though they are not definitely formu- 
lated, do yet, like the sound of bells, get all abroad on 
the air. A layman octogenarian, away down in Maine, 
born, by the way, in the same township as your vener- 
ated Bishop Soule, wrote me a short time since, ' We 



272 AMERICAN METHODISM 

want here organic union.' Another octogenarian, a 
layman of Cincinnati, eminent for his intelligence, and 
piety, and liberality, said to me just before I left home, 
1 We want it ; there is no reason why it should not be.' 
These old men may be too far ahead of their times. 
But like God's great seers standing on the mountain 
peaks which kiss the skies, they catch the very first 
streaks of the dawning new light which is rising, and 
destined to shine athwart our whole Church, North, 
South, East, and West. 

" If reunion is right and for the glory of God, it will 
come ; if not, may Heaven put it forever away ! For 
my own part, I dare not oppose, I cannot be indifferent 
to it ; / must pray and hope for its consummation, be- 
cause I believe it will be for the glory of God, the good 
of the whole people, and the stability of our Republic. 

" There is no bond like the religious bond to cement 
and compact the communities of a country into solid 
strength. But I am willing to wait God's time. 
"When I was a little boy I often tried to knock apples 
from the trees before they were ripe ; but as I grew 
older I found after they were ripe they would either 
fall of themselves, or needed only a gentle shake. 

"We need a little more love. We need baptism 
after baptism of the Spirit, the fire that melts, dissolves 
the souls of the people into one free-moving stream of 
love. . . . May God speed the day ! " 

This eloquent and pathetic pleading for organic 
union is a good specimen of the thought and feeling in 
the addresses of the fraternal delegates from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church through a period of over 
forty years, and, though organic unity has not come 
within that time, the feeling is likely to continue. 



FRATERNAL ADDRESSES 273 

Two years later the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church met, and to this Con- 
ference of 1884 came fraternal delegates from the 
Church South. The Reverend Charles W. Carter came 
with friendly greetings but in his address there was no 
proffer or suggestion of organic union. The other 
delegate, the Honorable A. H. Colquitt, brought a 
message of love and peace, but his address contained 
no proposal of organic unity. So the expressions of 
Doctor Ridgaway in 1882 were not reciprocated in the 
return addresses though their spirit was most brotherly. 

At the General Conference of 1888, the Reverend 
Samuel A. Steel, D. D., represented the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. His address breathed a 
loyal American spirit, and urged practical fraternity 
and harmony between the two Churches, but there was 
no plea for organic unity. 

The fraternal delegate from the Church South to the 
Methodist Episcopal General Conference in 1892 was 
the Reverend Dr. J. J. Tigert, afterwards made a 
bishop. He bore the fraternal salutations of his 
Church and stood for fraternity, but nothing beyond 
that. He spoke of constitutional differences between 
the two Churches, in which he referred to the Col- 
lege of Bishops as a coordinate body with a limited 
veto power over legislation, denied the power of a 
General Conference to finally "judge of the con- 
stitutionality of its own acts," and maintained that the 
power to finally interpret the Constitution and that 
which is constitutional " belongs alone to the Annual 
Conferences." He said : " Our Churches, Mr. President, 
are not only twins ; they are Siamese twins. . . . 
There is a free circulation of warm heart's blood be- 



274 AMERICAN METHODISM 

tween the two bodies — distinct yet united." "Our 
two Methodisms, Mr. President, are like the two olive 
trees and the two candlesticks of apocalyptic vision, 
which stand before the Lord of the earth. They are 
fruit-bearing and light-giving." 

With him they are always two and distinct and 
there is no suggestion of organic union. 

In the General Conference of 1896 there appeared as 
fraternal representatives of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, the Eeverend Dr. J. C. Morris and the 
Honorable G. B. Perkins. They both brought the 
fraternal greetings of their denomination. 

Doctor Morris said : " We are brethren, having a 
common parentage, a common name, one symbol of 
faith, and we are seeking to do the same work in the 
world," and " these two branches of Methodism, though 
' distinct as the waves,' are yet ' one as the sea,' " and, 
speaking of " the unity and continuity of Methodist 
teaching upon the subject of Christian experience," he 
said : " The solidarity of the Methodist in this respect is 
of the first importance. It does not matter so much 
that we attain organic unity. So long as we are not 
alienated in heart or divided by unbrotherly strifes we 
can afford to live within separate ecclesiastical lines, 
and leave the good providence of God to bring about 
the end He may desire," but there was no proffer of, or 
expressed wish for, organic unity. 

So the Honorable G. B. Perkins said he came " from 
one branch of a common family : to bring its greetings to 
the grand council of another," and spoke of the conflict 
of the Puritan of the North and the Cavalier of the 
South, but there was no phrase breathing a suggestion 
in favor of organic union between the two denominations. 



FRATERNAL ADDRESSES 275 

The Reverend Dr. E. E. Hoss was the delegate from 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to the Method- 
ist Episcopal General Conference of 1900. He restated 
the view of the Church South as to the episcopacy and 
the limitation on the General Conference in the matter 
of passing upon the constitutionality of its own acts, 
and said : " In our years of separation we have doubt- 
less drifted apart in some outward and noticeable par- 
ticulars. But a careful study of the two Episcopal 
Methodisms, made in large part on the ground where 
they are both actually at work, has served to convince 
me that, after all, the differences between them are in- 
finitesimal when compared with the points in which 
they agree. Superficially disunited, they are yet linked 
together by a thousand ties as close and holy as the 
love of God can make them. Even in outward aspects, 
they are as much alike as two handsome sisters, each 
one of whom, while retaining her individuality of ex- 
pression and bearing, also carries all the family marks," 
but he had no proffer or suggestion of organic unity. 

To the General Conference of 1904, the Reverend 
John C. Kilgo, D. D., was accredited as fraternal dele- 
gate from the Church South. He also brought " assur- 
ances of fraternal esteem with unstinted cordiality," and 
uttered many lofty truths, but, while he said : " A 
unified Christian Church — ' unified in a heavenly 
communion rather than compacted into an earthly cor- 
poration ' — is the supreme need of the age. The day of 
segregations, of prejudices, of provincialism, of antago- 
nism and sectional strifes should be fully past in this land. 
Americans are not tribal pagans masquerading in 
sacerdotal robes, and strifes and divisions do not become 
this nation within whose borders the note of Christian 



276 AMERICAN METHODISM 

song is never hushed," yet, notwithstanding the note of 
fraternity and fellowship, he raised no voice for a com- 
munion that was organic in a single external ecclesias- 
ticism. 

The Reverend Collins Denny, D. D., was the fraternal 
delegate from the Church South to the Methodist Epis- 
copal General Conference of 1908, which met in Balti- 
more. He brought from his Church its " affectionate 
salutations, its warm assurance of fraternal regard." 
He could say, as he did in his words of farewell : "Iain 
the third of my generation to preach the Gospel in the 
Methodist pulpits of this city. My own grandfather, 
who died within my own memory, died a member of 
your Church. My uncle (the Reverend John A. Col- 
lins), through his long life, was very highly honored 
among you," and yet, with all this lineage of which he 
was proud, he had not a single suggestion in favor of 
the organic union of his Church with the Church of his 
forefathers. Truly he could say : " I could not be among 
the delegates to a General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church without considerable feeling and with- 
out its being necessary to lay a very strong pressure 
upon the emotional side of my nature," but there was 
voiced no wish that the two Churches might be once 
again a united ecclesiasticism — one Methodist Episcopal 
Church for the whole country. 

To the Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 
1912 the fraternal delegate from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was the Reverend Frank M. Thomas, D. D. He 
spoke friendly and gracious words, as had others, but he 
went further and favored some form of union between 
the two Churches, though he did not appear to have a 
settled plan by which it might be brought about. On 



FRATERNAL ADDRESSES 277 

this matter he said : " Believing that a majority of the 
Methodists on this Continent earnestly desire some solu- 
tion of the problems before us, believing that our risen 
Lord is commanding us by His Spirit to seek and find a 
solution of the problem of a divided and overlapping 
Methodism, I am here to speak to you frankly and 
freely. I dare not affirm that all I say will be indorsed 
by the entire ministry and membership of my Church, 
but I do say that a large majority of them are deeply 
concerned about the problem of Methodist unifica- 
tion. . . . 

" There are three classes of Methodists in America. 
There are those who are pessimistic as to any solution 
of the problem. They would have each Methodism go 
on its way, loving and respecting the rights of the 
other. . . . Two mighty armies, though loyal to 
the same flag, cannot safely maneuver over the same 
field. . . . Then there are those who believe the 
problem of American Methodism to be one of easy 
solution. They would heal the breaches of the past by 
a simple fusion of the two Episcopal Methodisms. 
They would restore by vote the ecclesiastical status as 
it existed prior to 1844. Such a solution is deserving 
of careful attention. On its face it seems the logical 
thing to do, but when other facts are taken into con- 
sideration, when the mind which desires above all 
things to keep the spirit of unity in the bond of peace 
will inquire if some other solution be not possible." 

Then Doctor Thomas points to divergencies which in 
the course of years have developed in both denomina- 
tions. So he says : " Seldom in nature or in political 
or ecclesiastical history do we find two organisms hav- 
ing a common origin, but long separated, achieving re- 



278 AMERICAN METHODISM 

union by simple fusion. It is a fact of biology that 
each separate organism develops its own individual life 
and as time elapses its distinguishing characteristics be- 
come more marked. Whether for good or evil, the two 
Episcopal Methodisms have developed in their separa- 
tion marked divergencies. Some of these can be ac- 
counted for by environment, and some are due to a dif- 
ferent mental standpoint in regard to a few funda- 
mental aspects of life. To ignore present differences 
and by simple fusion attempt to restore the status as it 
existed seventy years ago would be an unwise policy, 
especially as regards my own Church. "We have al- 
ready found it difficult to wisely legislate for our whole 
connection, especially in local matters. How difficult, 
then, for a consolidated, unrestricted General Conference, 
representing reunited Methodism, to wisely legislate in 
some matters for New England and Georgia at the 
same time. Even the Congress of the United States, 
itself a double body, does not attempt such a task, but 
leaves local legislation to the State Legislatures. Con- 
sidering the differences of thought and life which still 
exist in America, to attempt such a perilous experiment 
just now, when the Hand of Blessing seems laid so 
generously upon Southern Methodism, would, in the 
judgment of our most thoughtful men, be assuming too 
great a risk for the ark of God." 

All of which suggests some form of state sovereignty 
and is against the union of the two Churches in one gov- 
ernment for the entire territory of the proposed united 
Church. But even the Congress of the United States 
legislates for the whole country. The drift of the argu- 
ment is in favor of sectional rather than general govern- 
ment for such a united Church, and each Church in 



FRATERNAL ADDRESSES 279 

such a union would have less general power than the 
Churches now have. 

Then pointing to what in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church the Church South considered a doubtful radi- 
calism, Doctor Thomas remarked : " And there are 
those among us in the South who feel, even if there 
were not profound divergence in life and thought, that 
just at this time when there seems to be such a wide- 
spread call for radical changes in your (Methodist Epis- 
copal) polity, it would be wise to wait and see if the 
iconoclast is to have his way. He is a gentleman very 
much abroad in the modern world, both in Church and 
State. With no deep grasp on the truths of life and 
history, he is, when a layman, guided largely by eco- 
nomic expediency. "When a minister, he is merely the 
sport of the monistic wash which the wave of Hege- 
lianism has left on the sands of the twentieth century. 
He is in favor of the abolition of the eldership., the in- 
stitution of a diocesan episcopacy, with a very strong 
drift towards a congregational polity. He would ruth- 
lessly remove from the Methodist Church every finger- 
print of the mightiest man of modern times, John 
Wesley. . . . 

" Therefore, we of the South, still enamored of the 
old Methodist system, are waiting to see how far the 
spirit of expediency shall lay its dissolving touch upon 
your great Church. We view with apprehension some 
changes which you have already made, and regard as 
extremely perilous some suggestions now before you for 
action. It may seem an impertinence for us to say any- 
thing concerning your domestic problems. If so, par- 
don it as a sister's solicitude. For we would regard it 
as nothing less than a national calamity should you lose 



280 AMERICAN METHODISM 

the distinguishing mark of Episcopal Methodism. "We 
might be compelled to drop the word ' South,' and be- 
come the sole Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America ! " 

This was not a pleasantry but a serious intimation 
that the Church South was in no haste as to the matter 
of union, and that it would not unite if what it regarded 
as a radical spirit should continue in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. Then he specifies the episcopacy 
and the presiding eldership. Beginning with the dis- 
trict superintendent, the Doctor said : " Some laymen 
among you have been so industriously decrying him 
that the microbe has crossed our border, and occasion- 
ally we find a preacher or layman advocating a diocesan 
episcopacy and the abolition of the eldership." 

To these movements he objected and intimated that 
they repelled the Church South. 

Proceeding, he observed that " There are many in 
American Methodism, North and South, who believe 
that the creation of a truly national Methodism is not 
an impossibility. Notwithstanding the many difficul- 
ties in the way, they believe that there are rising the 
outlines of a mightier and nobler Methodism than this 
continent has yet known. ... I have faith to be- 
lieve, in the face of many difficulties, that through fed- 
eration, adjudication, or unification, American Method- 
ism will yet be one." 

Again he said : " May we not lay the foundations of 
a united Methodism in peace and love, and trust our 
General Conferences, aye, command them, to slowly 
bring it to legal perfection ? " 

But with all this kindly expression it was plain that 
this fraternal delegate from the Church did not believe 



FRATERNAL ADDRESSES 281 

in a union by a mere fusion or blending of the two 
bodies into one without any preliminary stipulations as 
to the nature of the combination. His idea evidently 
meant a relation that recognized differences in fact and 
view and that instead of blotting out peculiarities would 
perpetuate them in various geographical localities. 
This is shown also in his reference to a recently pro- 
posed suggestion to divide the whole country into 
great geographical sections which would practically be 
self-governing. That is to say, the Church South sec- 
tion would still be the Church South section, and the 
union would not be a union with a common government 
as now is the case with a nation-wide Church. Further- 
more it was distinctly intimated that if what the South 
regarded as " radical changes " in polity in the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church were to prevail and " the icono- 
clast is to have his way," the Church South would not 
only " wait and see " but it Avould not unite in any way 
but would " be compelled " to assert itself to be, " and 
become the sole Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America." In other words there was 
no direct and immediate assurance of the willingness 
of the Church South to form a union " through federa- 
tion, adjudication, or unification," and if there was to 
be any closer relationship it was apparently to be a 
combination by federation in some form rather than a 
fusion which would have a pervading and uniform 
oneness. 

To those who think that the uniting of two Churches 
is an easy matter of a moment may be presented Doc- 
tor Thomas's cautionary remark that "The task of 
unifying American Methodism will not be the work 
of a day. . . . The unification of American Method,- 



282 AMERICAN METHODISM 

ism must be preceded by i a firm league of friendship ' 
which shall bind each Church to assist the other, and 
in honor prefer the other where the other has a right 
to be preferred." As to this one may ask, Who is to 
judge and determine ? 

Again Doctor Thomas said : " Not easily will insti- 
tutions, rooted in tradition and buttressed by dogma, 
change their forms and coalesce into new organiza- 
tions. Not rashly will Churches, which have a free 
and abundant life, consent to exchange their safety and 
freedom for the perilous path of a huge ecclesiasticism." 

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, meeting in Baltimore in the year 1908, sent a 
deputation to visit the General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Protestant Church assembled at the same time, in 
the city of Pittsburgh. With the fraternal deputation, 
headed by Bishop Henry W. Warren, went an address 
which had been adopted by the Methodist Episcopal 
General Conference on the 11th of May, 1908. 

This address formed the body of the credentials for 
the deputies which they presented to the Methodist 
Protestant Conference. In it the Methodist Episcopal 
General Conference proposed that the two Churches 
become one. Thus it said : " Having a common origin, 
holding a common faith, possessing so much of disci- 
pline and policy in common, and above all, the deep- 
rooted and growing conviction that the union of 
the various Methodisms would strengthen the local 
Churches, secure economy of resource, make for ag- 
gressive evangelism, and hasten the kingdom of our 
Lord, they earnestly desire that the Methodist Episco- 
pal and Methodist Protestant Churches shall become 
organically one. 



FRATERNAL ADDRESSES 283 

" That the Methodist Episcopal Church, in General 
Conference assembled, hereby most cordially invites 
the Methodist Protestant Church to unite with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in order that, as one great 
Methodist body, they and we may fulfill the better our 
individual commissions by preventing the waste of 
rivalry and exalting the God of peace." 

On the 22d of May, 1908, the General Conference of 
the Methodist Protestant Church drew up and adopted 
a reply to the above communication of the Methodist 
Episcopal General Conference. In this response were 
recited propositions which had been received for the 
organic union of the Congregational, United Brethren, 
and Methodist Protestant Churches, and referring to 
the action of the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church "proposing the renewal of organic 
fellowship with them as the beginning of a movement 
for a reunited and common Methodism in America," it 
said: 

" The General Conference of the Methodist Protestant 
Church hails with joy these tokens of the triumph of 
love and unity in the Church of the loving Christ." 
Then it said the Church responded " to the powerful 
and loving appeal of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
with loving and appreciative happiness," and felt under 
obligation "to carry on this appeal to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, and to other Methodist bodies 
in America, until the sun shall no more rise upon the 
divided and scattered children of Wesley, but our 
united country shall rejoice in a united Church that 
will need no other name than * The Methodist Church 
of America.' " 

One of the resolutions adopted by the Methodist 



284 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Protestant Conference, and incorporated in the reponse 
said: "We respond heartily to the proposal of the 
Methodist [Episcopal] Church, not unmindful of the 
difficulties to be overcome before a satisfactory con- 
clusion can be reached, but ready to go as far and as 
rapidly, in consummating a universal Methodism, as the 
interests and integrity of our own denomination will 
permit ; and to pray continually for the full realization 
of their and our hope." 

The Methodist Protestant General Conference ap- 
pointed a commission to meet with like commissions 
from other Methodistic bodies, and also appointed three 
fraternal deputies to convey the greetings of that body 
to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

After the presentation and reading of their creden- 
tials to that General Conference on the twenty-sixth 
day of May, 1908, these deputies, namely, the Reverend 
T. H. Lewis, D. D., LL. D., President of the General 
Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, the 
Reverend A. L. Reynolds, D. D., and the Honorable 
J. W. Hering, LL. D., were introduced and addressed 
the body. 

Doctor Lewis spoke most eloquently in behalf of a 
reunited Methodism in America. Thus he said: "In 
the eighty years that have intervened since the sad 
separation of the daughter from the family home we 
have never ceased to honor and love the family name ; 
we have never ceased to labor in the great mission of 
Methodism, namely, ' to spread Scriptural holiness over 
these lands ' ; and we have never ceased to believe and 
to pray that some time, His own good time, God will 
bring again the scattered tribes of Methodism together, 



FRATERNAL ADDRESSES 285 

c and Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall 
not vex Ephraim.' 

" It will not seem strange to you, I am sure, that we 
have not all made up our minds what our immediate 
duty is in this great matter. The change of Church 
relations is a solemn responsibility, never to be entered 
upon unadvisedly, but reverently, discreetly, and in the 
fear of God. . . . You do not expect and we do 
not understand that our membership, Churches, Con- 
ferences, and institutions are simply to be emptied out 
of one bag into another. You are big enough to hold 
us, but you are too big to want us in that fashion. It 
will take time and patience, much wisdom and great 
love, to adjust all the details of such a union. But 
that such a union is honorable and possible and desir- 
able, I have not the slightest doubt." 

Doctor Reynolds said : " Representing the ministers 
of the Methodist Protestant Church, it is my great 
pleasure to assure you that we are ready to meet with 
you and treat with you upon a basis of union honorable 
alike to all. We came out from you. It may be pos- 
sible that our essential differences may no longer need 
to be causes of division. If so, it may be possible that 
we, as one of the smaller bodies, may in some divinely 
directed way be permitted to be a mediator of Method- 
isms, and in this contemplated Methodist merger bring 
about the glorious millennium of Methodism." 

The Honorable W. J. Hering spoke in a similar strain 
and said : " We earnestly pray that, if God will, it may 
speedily come, when all the Methodisms of this great 
country of ours will be one." 

After these addresses had been delivered, Bishop 
Warren vacated the chair and graciously invited Doc- 



286 AMERICAN METHODISM 

tor Lewis to occupy it and preside. Doctor Lewis 
did so, and Bishop Warren, addressing the Methodist 
Protestant chairman of the Methodist Episcopal Gen- 
eral Conference, replied in fitting phrases, and closed 
by saying: "Brethren, nothing is impossible at the 
foot of Calvary. And all these difficulties will be for- 
gotten. The action upon which we have entered will 
be continued in separate Conferences, in individual 
Churches, and reports be made to the next Conference. 
And so the benediction of God shall come upon the 
united Churches." 

It was a memorable occasion, but the years have 
passed, and the union has not yet come. 



XXYI 

ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION BETWEEN THE 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHUECH AND 

THE CHUECH SOUTH 

r~] r^HE sanguine conclusions of the " Cape May 
Commission" in the summer of 1876 were 



1 



hardly sustained by the facts of subsequent 
years. The report of that joint commission of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, set forth that the commission 
had reached " a unanimous agreement of complete fra- 
ternity," that there would be known " no unfraternal 
Methodism in the United States, or even in the wide 
world," and that " These fraternized Churches have no 
further occasion for sectional disputes or acrimonious 
differences." 

The benediction was pronounced, the ecclesiastical 
sky seemed serene, and kindly souls rejoiced, but that 
the outcome was all that the commission anticipated 
the facts of history do not prove. 

That was forty-nine years ago — almost half a century 
ago — and any one who knows the history would not 
dare to say that there have been no " acrimonious dif- 
ferences," or that there was and has been "complete 
fraternity " between the two Churches ever since the 
adjustment made by the " Cape May Commission." 

Though it may be true that "these fraternized 
Churches " had " no further occasion for sectional dis- 

287 



288 AMERICAN METHODISM 

putes or acrimonious differences," nevertheless every- 
thing was not settled by and after the Cape May Com- 
mission, for the unfortunate fact is that differences did 
develop and various difficulties did exist or were asserted 
to exist. 

Certain property claims were adjusted and certain 
principles were laid down but these arrangements did 
not produce complete harmony. Many believed that 
something more was needed and from time to time at- 
tempts have been made to promote a more perfect 
fraternity between the two bodies, especially where 
they have been working in the same locality and more 
particularly in the South. 

For a considerable time the familiar words used to 
express the desired feeling and relation were fraternal 
and fraternity, but gradually another word was substi- 
tuted for fraternity. This word was federation. 

Evidently federation was meant to stand for some- 
thing stronger and closer than fraternity, and, yet, in 
many minds there has been no clear comprehension as 
to what this so-called federation means and represents 
between these two Churches. 

In a general sense, and to most persons, federation 
and confederation have the idea of combination or some 
form or degree of union. Thus, to federate, Latin 
foederatus, pp. of foederare, to establish by league, from 
fcedus, a league, is to unite in a league or federation ; 
to organize under a federal government. 

This idea of federation, however, did not mean prac- 
tically a combination or union of the two denomina- 
tions, but merely an effort through representatives of 
both bodies to settle differences as to the forming of 
congregations, the building of churches, and the inau- 



ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION 289 

gurating and carrying forward of various forms of 
work where both denominations are present and, per 
haps, are competing in and for a particular locality. 

Plainly such federation does not mean organic union, 
for each Church preserves its separate existence and 
independence. 

Some have sought to interpret the supposed principle 
as meaning that where one Church exists in a city or 
other locality the other should not* enter, and some in 
the Southern section of the country have practically 
construed the principle to mean that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church has no right to go into or be in the 
South because the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
has been somewhere in that section. 

That has been the logic of some Southern leaders 
who have held that the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
the United States of America has no right anywhere 
in the South and that it should get out of the South 
entirely and forever, and that the Church South is the 
only Methodist Episcopal Church that has any right in 
the South, say below the Ohio River. 

Even very recently a writer from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, so interpreted the idea of 
federation as meaning that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church should depart from the Southern section of the 
country. 

Thus, in the New Orleans Christian Advocate of Oc- 
tober 21, 1909, a minister of the Church South says : 

" We must hold to the real meaning of federation, 
namely, that it is opposed to organic union. The very 
definition of federation shuts out organic union, for fed- 
eration is based on the expectancy of the permanency 
of separateness and self-control in each member joining 



290 AMERICAN METHODISM 

the compact. ... If, therefore, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church is working, as many of us think, 
for organic union, it is unfair and insincere to 
cover their effort with a proposed federation. . . . 
If the Methodist Episcopal Church goes into federation 
as federation, she must recognize the territory ceded to 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at the time of 
the division by the General Conference of 1844." 

As a matter of fact the General Conference of 1844 
did not divide the Church. Neither did it cede any ter- 
ritory to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and it 
had no right to cede any territory in the United States 
of America. The Church South was not in existence 
in 1844, and only came into existence in 1845 after cer- 
tain parties had voluntarily withdrawn from the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church. 

Then if there was any uncertainty about the action 
of 1844, the General Conference of 1848 cleared that 
away by declaring the action of 1844 to be invalid, and 
the Annual Conferences nullified its proposition by re- 
fusing to concur. Further if anything remained of the 
above interpretation of the action of 1844 it was swept 
away by the results of the Civil War and the elimina- 
tion of slavery which was understood by some to mark 
a line. Still further, the interpretation was cancelled 
by the Church South when it carried its Church work 
into the North, as it began to do in the forties and 
when, after the Civil War, its General Conference of 
1866 formally declared there was no restricting line 
and so abrogated any line as it had previously by its 
own movements abandoned any line for which at any 
time it had contended, so that now, when, for from fifty 
to seventy years, both Churches have by their actions 



ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION 291 

asserted there was no restricting line, it is too late to 
claim that the Church South has any exclusive right to 
the Southern section of the United States. 

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the fact that the 
Church South had abandoned in 1866 the indefinite 
line which it had claimed and had abrogated any and 
every asserted line, the writer just quoted at this late 
period claims, as have others, that there cannot be any 
federation with the Methodist Episcopal Church that 
does not keep the latter Church out of the South, and 
this is a specimen of one form of Southern logic bearing 
upon federation as viewed by not a few in that part of 
the land. 

If such Southern thinkers object to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church being in the South on the ground 
that the northern border of the South was the dividing 
line between the two Churches, it might be asked why 
then has the Church South gone into many Northern 
States, and even up into Oregon, which it did as early 
as 1849 ? Why, it may be asked, if there was such a 
line, did the Church South go into the North and why 
has it projected and carried on extensive operations 
north of the line of the thirteen Southern Conferences 
which withdrew in 1845 ? Even the city of Washing- 
ton, in the District of Columbia, never was in the terri- 
tory of the withdrawn Conferences of 1845. The fact 
that the Church South goes into the North and West, 
according to its own pleasure, shows that the Church 
South does not recognize any restricting line of division 
and, consequently, there is no barrier to keep the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church out of the South. 

Yet, strange to say, some Southern leaders and writers 
persist in an idea of Federation that means a process 



292 AMERICAN METHODISM 

that if carried out would "federate" the Methodist 
Episcopal Church entirely out of the South. 

The remark of the chairman of the Committee on 
Church Relations in the 1914 General Conference of 
the Church South, " that where either Methodism is es- 
tablished and doing the work of Methodism the other 
shall not enter," might be construed as meaning that as 
the Church South is in the South, the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America has no 
right in the South, but this would mean also that the 
Church South should retire from the North and "West 
and restrict itself to the South of 1844 and 1845. This, 
however, would not be a federation but a division of the 
country, and, with both Churches refusing to recognize 
any limiting line of division, it is too late in the day for 
those of a certain Southern school of thought to prac- 
tically or actually assert that there is a geographical 
line of separation between the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
that excludes the former denomination from the South. 

However, from the word and idea of fraternity, the 
Churches have passed to the use of the word federation, 
and though with many it would still seem that the 
word has no very distinct definition and the average 
mind has no clear conception of what is intended, nev- 
ertheless there has been forming an idea of federation 
which implies that both Churches may be in the South. 

This idea of federation that permits both denomina- 
tions to be in the same section, the same city, or the 
same town, is a broadening of the concessions of the 
Cape May Commission of 1876, which admitted the fact 
and right of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
South. 



ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION 293 

In the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, held in 1894, and on the 19th of May, 
the following was adopted : 

" Resolved, by the General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, now in session, That 
the bishops be requested to appoint a Commission on 
Federation, consisting of three bishops, three ministers, 
and three laymen, and that the secretary be instructed 
to notify the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church of this action, and request it to 
appoint a similar commission. 

"Resolved, That this commission shall have power 
to enter into negotiations with said similar commission 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, if one shall be 
appointed, with a view to abating hurtful competitions 
and the waste of men and money in home and foreign 
fields. 

"Resolved, That any arrangements which such com- 
mission may make shall be reported to the next General 
Conference for adoption, alteration, or rejection." 

The commission, therefore, had no final power, but 
was merely to confer. Then it was to report to its 
General Conference which reserved all authority in the 
matter of determination. It will be seen also that the 
proposal was not for organic union but simply an 
agreement to prevent injurious competitions between 
the two denominations and waste of men and money 
by either Church, and the terms were such that they 
might be interpreted differently by either party as each 
might have a different opinion as to whether a given 
movement was a " hurtful competition " or a particular 
expenditure was a " waste." 

The next General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 



294 AMERICAN METHODISM 

copal Church, that of 1896, ordered a corresponding 
" Commission on Federation " 1 in response to the 
Church South. 

As the Journal of 1900 recites : " The General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1896 met 
this overture in a fraternal spirit, and requested the 
bishops to appoint a similar commission with equal 
power, which they did." 2 

As has been observed, this proposition for a Com- 
mission on Federation was not a proposition for organic 
union, or a looking in that direction, on the part of the 
Church South. Long years before that Church had 
declared that fraternity or federation was very different 
from organic unity. Thus in its General Conference 
of 1874, the Church South declared that " Organic union 
is not involved in fraternity." 

In the mind of the South federation merely meant a 
form of action for a common purpose by two decidedly 
different and independent bodies. In its view federa- 
tion was in the interest of the Church South and was 
intended primarily to defend the Church South from 
the incoming and spread of what many people in that 
section were pleased to call the Northern Church. 

The two Commissions on Federation met and formu- 
lated certain recommendations. Among other things, 
this joint commission recommended "the taking of 
prompt steps for the preparation of a common Cate- 
chism, a common Hymn Book, and a common order of 
public worship, and that other branches of Methodism 
be invited to cooperate in this undertaking." 

One formulation of the joint commission was " That 

1 General Conference Journal, 1896, p. 101. 

2 lbid. t 1900, p. 367. 



ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION 295 

we recommend the respective General Conferences to 
enact provisions to the effect that where either Church 
is doing the work expected of Methodism the other 
Church shall not organize a society nor erect a church 
building until the bishop having jurisdiction in the 
case of the work shall be consulted and his approval 
obtained." 

This logically meant that the two denominations 
might work in the same section or territory, and in the 
same place, if the bishop of either denomination in 
charge was consulted and gave his consent, so that the 
work of the one Church might go on if its bishop ap- 
proved and the work of the other denomination could 
go on in the same place if the consent of its bishop was 
secured. 

Then there might be a difference of opinion as to 
whether one or the other Church was " doing the work 
expected of Methodism," and each one might, and 
probably would insist it was so working, and either one 
might say the other was not " doing the work expected 
of Methodism" or not doing it fully and insist upon 
entering the particular field. Under such circumstances 
who would have the final decision ? Each side would 
judge for itself. 

The joint commission also recommended the two 
General Conferences " to adopt measures for the joint 
administration of our publishing interests in China and 
Japan," and commended to the two General Confer- 
ences " the consideration " of " the principle and desira- 
bility of cooperative administration " " among our mis- 
sions in foreign lands." 

The Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 1900 
approved and adopted " the acts passed by the joint 



296 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Commission on Federation," ' and this certainly looked 
like progress in the matter of " federation," though there 
was no action or suggestion upon the matter of organic 
unity. 

In 1904 the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church passed an act on the " Federation of 
Churches," and it was placed in the Appendix to its 
Book of Discipline for that year, as If 50, immediately 
after the act on " Union with other Churches," as fol- 
lows: 

" 1" 50. Federation of Churches. 

" First. We accept and adopt the action of the joint 
Commission on Federation providing for a common 
Hymnal, a common Catechism, and a common Order 
of Worship for the Methodist Episcopal Church and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

" Second. This General Conference hereby approves 
and adopts the acts passed by the joint Commission on 
Federation of the Churches to the effect that where 
either Church is doing the work of Methodism the other 
Church shall not organize a society or erect a church 
building until the bishop having jurisdiction in the case 
of the work proposed shall be consulted and his ap- 
proval obtained. 

" Third. We agree with the Episcopal Address, that 
steps might be wisely taken towards a more facile in- 
terchange of ministers and members, and to promote 
other measures of practical fraternity between the two 
chief branches of American Episcopal Methodism, and 
refer the subject to the Board of Bishops and to the 
joint Commission on Federation, to adopt such measures 
1 General Conference Journal, 1900, pp. 367-370. 



ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION 297 

as in their judgment shall fulfill the spirit of this reso- 
lution, and to that end we recommend the continuance 
of the joint Commission on Federation for another 
quadrennium, its members to be appointed by the Board 
of Bishops ; and we further recommend that the Com- 
mission on Federation take such steps as it may deem 
wise and necessary to bring about a closer unity and a 
greater fraternity and cooperation in Christian work 
between the colored Methodist Churches having an 
episcopal form of government. Two of these Churches, 
the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the African 
Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, are now holding 
General Conference sessions, and we suggest that they 
and the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church of America, 
and other Methodist bodies, be invited to join with us 
in the use of the common Hymnal, the common Order 
of Worship, and the common Catechism. 

"Fourth. Whereas, Two Churches of like creed, 
polity, spirit, and purpose with our own have signified 
through prominent officials to some of the members of 
this General Conference a desire that some initial step 
might be taken at this session looking towards the con- 
solidation of these Churches with the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church ; therefore, 

" Resolved, That the powers of the Commission on 
Federation be so enlarged as to meet like commissions 
from other Churches, receive overtures, and report to 
the General Conference of 1908. 

" Fifth. On the subject of general Church federation 
and cooperation we recommend that we take part in 
the proposed Conference of representatives of Protestant 
Churches to be held in New York City in November, 
1905, and that the bishops be requested to appoint fifty 



298 AMERICAN METHODISM 

representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who 
shall serve without expense to the Church, and that 
Frank Mason North be appointed representative of this 
Church on the Committee of Arrangements." ■ 

Just what " two Churches of like creed, polity, spirit, 
and purpose " are referred to in the fourth paragraph 
is not stated. Merely the fact that there were two de- 
nominations the " prominent officials " of which had ex- 
pressed a desire for consolidation is mentioned. 

The particular force of the expression : " the consoli- 
dation of these Churches with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church " is not perfectly clear, though some might in- 
terpret it as implying that those who had spoken meant 
a mere fusion by coming into the Methodist Episcopal 
Church as it was at that time. In other words that 
they would consolidate with it rather than it with the 
others, and that there would be a combination that 
would not mean a modification of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. 

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, meeting in 1908, passed another act, entitled 
the " Commission on Federation," which took the place 
of the Act of 1904, and which appears in the Appendix 
of the Book of Discipline for 1908 as 1" 53, under the 
simple caption of " Federation," as follows : 

"1. That the Commission on Federation be contin- 
ued for another quadrennium, and that its members be 
appointed by the Board of Bishops as heretofore. 

" 2. That said Commission is hereby instructed to 

invite the Evangelical Association, the United Brethren, 

and such other branches of Methodism as it may believe 

are sympathetic, to confer through similar commissions 

1 General Conference Journal, 1904. 



ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION 299 

concerning federation or organic union as in the judg- 
ment of the same Churches, respectively, may be most 
desirable, and to report to the General Conference of 
1912. 

" 3. That we rejoice in the increasing evidences of 
closer fellowship and prospective union between the 
various branches of colored Episcopal Methodism in the 
United States as one of the most striking and hopeful 
indications of the growth of the spirit of Christian 
unity, and hereby instruct the Commission on Federa- 
tion to further these results as far as may be prac- 
ticable. 

"4. That a commission consisting of one bishop, 
three ministers and three laymen be appointed by the 
Board of Bishops to serve during the ensuing quadren- 
nium and report to the General Conference of 1912, 
whose duty it shall be to confer with similar commis- 
sions, if such shall be appointed, from the African Meth- 
odist Episcopal, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion, 
and the Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches, con* 
cerning such questions as may lead to more harmonious 
cooperation in extending the kingdom of Christ. 

" 5. That the bishop who shall be a member of said 
Commission shall notify the General Conferences of the 
African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Meth- 
odist Episcopal Zion Church, and the Colored Methodist 
Episcopal Church of our willingness to confer with 
similar commissions from these Churches." 

This action meditated efforts towards two alter- 
natives, either federation or organic union on the part 
of white churches of the Methodistic family, and also 
a separate conference and consideration with colored 
Episcopal Methodist bodies looking towards cooperation 



300 AMERICAN METHODISM 

or union among colored Episcopal Methodists. In 
other words there were to be two movements, one 
among white Episcopal Methodists and the other 
among colored Episcopal Methodists, with the evident 
intention of effecting two consolidations, one a white 
and the other a colored Episcopal Methodism. 

There were also other actions on the subject of union 
by the Methodist Episcopal General Conference of 1908. 
Thus there was one in reference to the Methodist Prot- 
estant Church. 

Thus that General Conference declared that it 
"most cordially invites the Methodist Protestant 
Church to unite with the Methodist Episcopal Church," 
and it sent a Fraternal Deputation to convey " this in- 
vitation together with the most cordial greetings of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church." 

The General Conference also referred to the Com- 
mission on Federation the question of closer union of 
the German work in Texas, as carried on by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, the Church South and 
the Evangelical Association, and the question of the 
union of Methodist Churches in China was referred to 
the Federal Council. 

Further the Commission on Federation reported con- 
cerning its efforts with the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, and other white branches of Methodism, and at 
considerable length in regard to consultations with 
representatives of the colored Episcopal Methodists. 

In the 1912 General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church its Committee on Federation made a 
report in which was incorporated the statement drawn 
up by " the Federation Commissions of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, 



ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION 301 

South, and the Methodist Protestant Church in joint 
session in Baltimore, November 10, 1910," which in 
part is as follows : 

" We mutually agree that the Churches represented 
by us are equally apostolic in faith and purpose and 
having a common origin, the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, organized in 1784; that they are joint heirs 
of the traditions and doctrinal standards of the fathers, 
and that they have proved their loyalty to the evan- 
gelical faith and evangelistic spirit which characterized 
early Methodists. 

" We are mutually agreed that our fathers settled 
the issues of the past conscientiously for themselves 
respectively, and separated regretfully, believing that 
only such action could insure their continued access to 
the people they were called to serve." 

This shows a desire to make mutual concessions in 
order to strengthen the spirit of common conciliation. 

Then, favoring " some form of unification that will 
further allay hurtful competition," there is the sugges- 
tion that the joint commission, " if found practicable," 
" bring to the General Conferences and people of the 
respective Churches a plan to provide for such unifica- 
tion through reorganization of the Methodist Churches 
concerned, as shall insure unity of purpose, administra- 
tion, evangelistic effort, and all other functions for 
which our Methodism has stood from the beginning." 

Having finished the quotation from the statement of 
the joint commission, the report of the committee 
continues : 

" We heartily approve the action of our Commission 
on Federation in proposing the consideration of the 
question of organic union to the commissioners in joint 



302 AMERICAN METHODISM 

session at Baltimore, believing that the membership of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church would welcome a 
corporate reunion of the Methodisms of America." 

The report also said : " We reaffirm the declaration 
of the General Conference of 1908, namely: That 
union of these Churches having a common origin, a 
common faith, and possessing so much of discipline 
and polity in common, would in our opinion strengthen 
the efficiency of the local Churches, secure economy of 
resources, make for aggressive evangelism and whole- 
some civic reform, contribute to an era of good feeling 
among people of all sections, and hasten the kingdom 
of our Lord. Therefore we most cordially invite the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, the Methodist 
Protestant Church, and all other branches of Method- 
ism to join with the Methodist Episcopal Church in a 
consecrated and persistent effort to unify the various 
branches of the Wesley family in America in one great 
Methodist Church. 

" We recommend that a Commission on Federation, 
constituted as before and appointed by the bishops 
shall be named, with full power and authority to con- 
tinue negotiations and to treat with similar commis- 
sions from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, the 
Methodist Protestant Church, and any and all other 
duly appointed commissions from other Churches or 
branches of Methodism, or with each separately, con- 
cerning the commendable purposes of advancing organic 
union or closer federation. Said Commission to report 
to the next General Conference." 

In the Appendix to the Book of Discipline of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church for 1912, the last two para- 
graphs of this report appear as " Tf 562. Federation," 



ATTEMPTS AT FEDERATION 303 

with the words " That union of these Churches " down 
to " the kingdom of our Lord," omitted, and omitted 
presumably on the supposition that they appeared in the 
chapter in the Appendix of 1908 which was not the 
case. 

It will be noticed that the object sought was not or- 
ganic union alone but " organic union or closer federa- 
tion," the one or the other. That is to say " organic 
union," if that was practicable but, if that could not be 
secured, then federation which is described as " closer 
federation." 

If two kindred Churches are not prepared to unite it 
is nevertheless a good thing to secure and preserve 
fraternal relations, and in the case of the two bodies in 
question there has come about freer communication 
and greater friendliness than was possible some years 
ago. 

That means a gain for Christian brotherhood. 



XXYII 
FEDEEATION IN PEACTICE 

NATUEALLY one may inquire as to how the 
plans of federation which have been devised, 
particularly, since the action of the Cape 
May Commission in 1876, have worked out in practical 
operation. 

That Commission supposed that every difficulty was 
settled — that, as its members said, " we have arrived at 
a settlement of every matter affecting, as we suppose, 
the principles of a lasting and cordial adjustment," and 
they had arrived at " a unanimous agreement of com- 
plete fraternity." 

Difficulties, however, did arise from time to time in 
subsequent years, and, hence, the repeated resolutions 
in favor of fraternity and federation and the commis- 
sions on federation ordered and appointed from quad- 
rennium to quadrennium. 

Notwithstanding all these resolutions, reports, and 
commissions, still there was not a clear and uniform un- 
derstanding as to their import and their force, and the 
question continues to be asked openly or tacitly in some 
form — What is Federation ? What is this kind of Fed- 
eration ? What is it intended to effect ? What can it 
do? 

One thing, however, is accepted as quite clear, namely, 
that this Federation is not unity, but rather, on the 
contrary, is an avowal of, and a persisting in, separa- 
tion or independent existence of the respective denomi- 

304 



FEDERATION IN PRACTICE 305 

nations. In other words, it may relate but it does not 
combine. 

Further the resolutions and commissions on federa- 
tion have not completely removed from the Southern 
mind the idea that the Southern section belongs abso- 
lutely and solely to the Church South. So the extreme 
Southern view still is that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church had, and has, no right to be in the South, that 
it should have not entered the South, that it should not 
now be in the South but that it should go out, and stay 
out, of the South. This view is not held by all, but in 
the South there still is a pretty general feeling that fed- 
eration strictly construed means that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church has no rightful place in the South, 
that it should depart therefrom, and that it should go 
at once. 

Persons with such views continue practically, and 
actually, to assert and reassert that there existed, and 
that there now exists, a definite geographical line of 
separation between the proper territory of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 
and of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and 
they reiterate that view, notwithstanding the fact that 
the Church South has not restricted itself to the South- 
ern side of that supposed line, and that, since its own 
action of 1866, declaring there was no dividing line, it 
could not fairly maintain any such claim to a geograph- 
ical barrier. 

When these extremists declare in this day that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has no right to be in the 
South and demand that it should go out and stay out, 
they fail to present the logical corollary that the Church 
South should go out and stay out of the North, though 



306 AMERICAN METHODISM 

this is required by the logic of their declaration if it is 
correct, which it is not. The theory that there is a 
definite geographical line dividing the two denomina- 
tions has not restrained the Church South from invad- 
ing the North, and, therefore, it cannot be used legiti- 
mately to keep the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America out of the South. 

This extreme view voices the sentiment of those in 
the Southern body who would federate the Methodist 
Episcopal Church out of the South entirely. 

On the other hand, there are in the Church South 
those who, while they wish their Church had complete 
possession of the Southern section, nevertheless realize 
the impracticability of the demand that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church abandon its extensive interests in the 
South. 

With this failure to change certain old views, the 
best that can be said for what is called Federation is 
that it is proposed as a modus vivendi by which, under 
some regulation or understanding, both Churches may 
work in the same sections of the country. 

Here the question arises as to how this theory and 
provision for proximity of occupation has worked out 
in practice? If Federation has not harmonized all 
views, has it been any better in practical operation ? 
Candidly the so-called federation in its working has 
been very disappointing. 

In the first place it has not prevented friction. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church has gone into parts of the 
South and the Federation Commissions have not pre- 
vented dissatisfaction on the part of the Church South, 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church has gone into 
places where the Church South was not in occupation 



FEDERATION IN PEACTICE 307 

and operation, and, though there was no interference 
with the actual working of that Church, its representa- 
tives were not satisfied. 

The Southern Church has certainly gone into many 
places where the Methodist Episcopal Church had en- 
tered first. It has gone into the city of Washington, 
which was not in any of the withdrawing Conferences 
in 1845. It went into Maryland, which adhered to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. It went north of the 
Ohio River, into Illinois, and elsewhere, and established 
Churches and Annual Conferences, and in the later 
years has been endeavoring to expand and strengthen 
its work at great expenditure of money and effort. 
The attempted federation has not prevented that, and 
has not tried to prevent it. 

Then in places in the South where the Methodist 
Episcopal Church had gone previously, and where the 
Church South had no work, the Church South has en- 
tered and begun competitive operations. 

Into various portions of the South, Northern and 
Western people have gone and started industries and 
founded towns and communities where the Church 
South did not exist, and they have the Church they 
were accustomed to in their former places of residence, 
and have, therefore, started the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, but the Church South has afterwards entered 
such places though they are about as Northern as if they 
were north of the Ohio River. 

It is not necessary to discuss at this point the Tight- 
ness of these things, the purpose here being merely to 
show that the Commissions on Federation have not pre- 
vented them or obviated every degree of friction. 

So in communities where the Church South was 



308 AMERICAN METHODISM 

actively at work the Methodist Episcopal Church has 
entered because Northern people wanted that Church 
or because Southern people preferred and desired its 
ministrations, and many of the most devoted members 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South are 
Southerners " to the manner born," of the generations, 
some soldiers of the Civil War or sons and daughters 
of soldiers who fought on the Southern side. 

People in a free land have a right to have the 
Church they want and that represents their views, 
and these people in the South have a right to have 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in their midst if they 
want it. But here and there in the South where 
Methodist Episcopalians, or those who desired a 
Methodist Episcopal Church, have undertaken to as- 
sert their right and liberty to establish such a Church 
which met their own ideas, their right has been denied 
or questioned, and, sometimes, conflicts of considerable 
intensity have arisen. These things the federation idea 
has not controlled either to prevent or harmonize, and 
one may doubt whether the federation suggestions and 
the general resolutions or agreements have been carried 
out equitably or effectively. Certainly they have not 
produced perfect harmony and completely controlled 
local action either on the one side or the other. 

Too much should not be attempted in the way of 
control and certain principles must be conceded. Thus, 
on general principles, the people of a place have a right to 
say what Church they wish, and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church has a right to go where it is needed and can do 
good, and the same may be said for other Churches. A 
so-called federation that overrides these principles is not 
likely to make for genuine peace and real progress. 



XXVIII 
A PLAN FOR UNION 

IN 1896, twenty years after the Cape May Commis- 
sion had met and had drawn up its fraternal agree- 
ment, the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church adopted a plan of " Union with other 
Churches." 

This action appeared in the Appendix to the Book of 
Discipline of this denomination for 1896, as 1~48, under 
the title : " Union with other Churches." 

It reads : 

" Whenever any Synod, Conference, Church Society 
or other body of Christians, agreeing in doctrine with 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, shall desire to become 
a component part of said Church, the Annual Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, most nearly 
or conveniently related, territorially, to such Synod, 
Conference, Church Society or body, shall have power, 
with the consent of the bishop presiding, on being 
satisfied with the agreement of such Synod, Confer- 
ence, Church Society or body of Christians with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in Doctrine and Discipline, 
to receive such organization in a body into our com- 
munion. 

" Ministers, so received, shall hold such relations and 
enjoy such privileges as they would hold or enjoy if ad- 
mitted individually on their credentials. Members, so 
received, shall sustain the same relation to the local 

309 



310 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Church they would sustain if received individually by 
certificates. 

" Before such reception, however, a properly authen- 
ticated register of such ministers and members shall be 
deposited with the secretary of the Conference consider- 
ing such reception. 

" In all cases of the reception of Churches, satisfac- 
tory assurance shall be given the Conference that the 
property shall be placed in the custody of trustees of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and that the Churches will 
receive pastors appointed by the authority of the Gen- 
eral Conference of said Church." 

This was a simple and easy method of receiving in- 
dividual societies and larger organized bodies into the 
Methodist Episcopal Church by an Annual Conference, 
with the concurrence of the presiding bishop, when the 
society or body agreed with the Doctrines and Dis- 
cipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, very much 
as a pastor and a local church can receive an individual 
member on proof of doctrinal and disciplinary agreement. 

As this measure was reported from the Committee on 
Missions, it was probably intended primarily for mis- 
sion fields, but it was phrased for general application. 

Under this arrangement, a wide-spread denomination 
which was Methodistic might be admitted in sections 
by the Annual Conferences and bishops of the respect- 
ive localities. 

Under this plan the Methodist 'Episcopal Church, 
South, and the Methodist Protestant Church, if they 
had so desired, might have been received into the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in 1896 or any year since, 
for the action remains in force and still is printed in the 
Appendix to the Book of Discipline. 



XXIX 
INDEPENDENCE AND UNIFICATION IN JAPAN 

IN the meantime appeals had been made in a mis- 
sion field beyond the Pacific for both independence 
from the Mother Church and also for unification 
with other Methodist bodies. This was in Japan where 
the Methodist Episcopal Church began mission work in 
the year 1873. This was the year of the mission or- 
ganization. In eleven years after that, namely in 1884, 
the mission was made an Annual Conference. 

Only four years later this Conference in Japan was 
asking for autonomy or independence. With this re- 
quest it came to the General Conference of 1888, thus 
furnishing a striking demonstration of the desire even 
in foreign mission fields for self-government and inde- 
pendence, a desire which is likely to assert itself more and 
more as the native Churches become stronger and the 
national spirit has a greater opportunity to assert itself. 

To the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in 1888 the^Keverend Dr. R. S. Maclay pre- 
sented a memorial from the Japan Conference concern- 
ing the organic union of Methodism in Japan, and this 
was referred to the Committee on Missions. 

The Preachers' Meeting of Philadelphia sent a 
memorial to this General Conference concerning the 
autonomy of Methodism in Japan which was referred 
to the same committee. 

Also through the New York delegation a memorial 

311 



312 AMERICAN METHODISM 

signed by C. W. Green, relating to a basis of union for 
the diiferent Methodist organizations of Japan, was 
presented and referred to the Committee on the State 
of the Church. 

Similar memorials were presented through the dele- 
gations from other American Conferences and referred 
to the Committee on Missions. 

On the evening of May 30, 1888, the Committee on 
Missions reported on this subject in the session of the 
Conference held in Saint Paul's Methodist Episcopal 
Church, in New York City. The discussion not having 
been concluded at that session it was resumed at the 
regular place of meeting the next morning, the 31st of 
May, and at that time was adopted. 

In the resolutions then agreed to this body said: 
"That this General Conference will not interpose 
any objections to the Japanese Methodists declaring 
themselves independent of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, nor will they object to their uniting themselves 
with any or all other forms of Methodism that now 
exist or may exist in Japan, the same to be done ac- 
cording to the general basis of union proposed." 

Then followed the plan for carrying out this per- 
mission and declaration and provisions for the protec- 
tion of property and for the care of the American 
missionaries, which plan, among other items, contained 
the following : 

"That whenever it shall be made evident to the 
bishop in charge of Japan and to the Board of Mana- 
gers of the Missionary Society that it is the desire of 
the Methodists of Japan to be so declared independent, 
and wherever arrangements satisfactory to said Board 
of Managers and bishops shall have been made, secur- 



INDEPENDENCE IN JAPAN 313 

ing the real estate in Japan of the Missionary Society 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the said bishops 
and Board shall proceed to make all the arrangements 
necessary to the independence of said Church and its 
union with the Canada Methodist Missions or any other 
Methodist Missions in Japan. 

" That in case, during the present quadrennial period, 
the Methodist Church of Japan shall be created in 
harmony with the spirit and purpose of this action, the 
General Missionary Committee and Board may con- 
tinue, under proper regulations, appropriations and 
payments to the work in Japan, and that our people in 
this country be encouraged to continue to manifest 
their interest in the evangelical, educational, publishing, 
and other work in that country." 

Not only was this an authorization of independence 
for Japan but it was also a recognition of the right of 
this foreign conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church to make itself independent of the Mother 
Church. So the General Conference of 1888 said it 
would " not interpose any objections to the Japanese 
Methodists declaring themselves independent." Neither 
would it " object to their uniting themselves with any 
or all other forms of Methodism ... in Japan, the 
same to be done according to the general basis of union 
proposed." 

Though this permission was granted, and the right 
conceded, the desired independence was not effected 
under this act. The project was not carried out be- 
cause the terms were not met in some particular, the 
prevailing opinion being that it failed because of the 
non-concurrence of the bishop in charge of the Japan 
Conference at that time. 



314 AMERICAN METHODISM 

At the ensuing General Conference, that of 1892, a 
memorial on the same subject came from the Japan 
Conference but no definite action was taken. The 
movement for independence and union was quiescent 
until 1904, when in the General Conference of that year 
there was presented from Japan several memorials in 
regard to organic union in that country, which memo- 
rials were referred to the Committee on Missions. 

That Committee reported on the " Unification of 
Methodism in Japan " as follows : 

" On the unification of Methodist bodies in Japan we 
would respectfully recommend : 

" 1. That we recognize the desirability of the union 
of the several Methodist bodies in Japan. 

" 2. That all papers submitted to this General Con- 
ference on the subject of Methodist union be referred 
to a commission of five, to consist of one bishop, the 
corresponding secretary of the Missionary Society, and 
three other members, two of whom shall be laymen, 
to be appointed by the Board of Bishops. 

"3. That said commission shall have full power to 
confer with similar commissions appointed by other 
Methodist bodies proposing to enter into the union, 
and to take final action in the adoption of a plan of 
unification, provided it shall secure the approval of 
four out of the ^.Ye commissioners; and provided, 
further, that in case a plan of union is agreed upon by 
our own and one other of the negotiating bodies said 
plan of union may be adopted without further legisla- 
tion on the part of the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church." 

This was adopted by the General Conference on the 
twenty-first day of May, 1904, and thus the independ- 



INDEPENDENCE IN JAPAN 315 

ence from the Methodist Episcopal Church of its Japan 
Mission was provided for, and also its combination with 
missions of other Methodist bodies in the Japanese 
Empire. 

This separation of the Japan Mission from the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church and its union with the Japanese 
Mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and 
that of the Methodist Church of Canada in Japan, was 
consummated in 1907. 

The story at length is told in the report of the Com- 
mission presented to the Methodist Episcopal General 
Conference of 1908, as printed in connection with the 
Journal of that body, where the document covers 
thirty-three octavo pages. 

The narrative recites that : 

"As early as 1887 the missionaries and native 
preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the 
Methodist Church of Canada in Japan, agreed upon a 
tentative plan for the union of the missions of said 
Churches into a Japanese Methodist Church, which 
plan was referred to our General Conference in 1888, 
with several memorials praying for its acceptance." 

Referring to the approval given by that General 
Conference, the report notes that the mission in Japan 
was " advised to earnestly seek a union with all the 
bodies of Methodists in Japan, and the bishops and 
Board of Managers of the Missionary Society were di- 
rected to make all arrangements for the ' independ- 
ence ' of the Methodist Church of Japan whenever it 
should appear to the bishop in charge of the Mission 
and to the Board of Managers that it was ' the desire 
of the Methodists in Japan to be so declared independ- 
ent,' " and then, referring to the fact that the arrange- 



316 AMERICAN METHODISM 

ment was not carried out at that time, the report ob- 
serves : 

" Whether this well-laid plan failed through provi- 
dential interposition or human obstruction may not here 
be discussed ; but the conditions that made for such a 
movement did not change." 

Hence the action of 1904 and the appointment of the 
Commission which had performed its duty " resulting 
by God's favor and guidance in the organization of the 
Methodist Church of Japan." 

Then follows a recital of the different and progressive 
acts that led to the coming together in Tokyo, on the 
twenty-second day of May, 1907, of the delegates 
elected by the several Annual Conferences concerned, 
" for the purpose of organizing the General Conference 
of the Methodist Church of Japan under the plan fixed 
by the Basis of Union." 

A Discipline having been prepared and approved, 
the Conference on the first day of June, 1907, being 
Saturday, proceeded to the election of a bishop, or 
Kantoku, and Y. Honda, the President of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Aoyama College, was chosen to that 
office, and the next day, Sunday, was duly consecrated, 
and on Monday took the chair and presided over the 
General Conference of the new Church composed of 
those in Japan who had belonged to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, and the Methodist Church of Canada. Thus 
Methodist Missions in Japan were made independent 
of their mother Churches in North America and were 
unified in one Church in this foreign land, and thus 
came into existence the Nippon Methodist Kyokwai, 
or in English, the Methodist Church of Japan. 



INDEPENDENCE IN JAPAN 317 

The main legal principle involved in this was that 
the work was on foreign soil. As in the case of Canada 
the territory was under a foreign political jurisdiction 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America did not have quite the same relation 
to and control of work not within or under the juris- 
diction of the United States of America as it had re- 
lation to and control of territory for denominational 
work within the jurisdiction of the United States of 
America. 

This difference of relationship and control was recog- 
nized in the matter of the independence of the Canadian 
Methodist Episcopalians in 1828 when the General Con- 
ference by formal action recognized that the Canada 
Annual Conference was " under a foreign government," 
and therefore declared : " This General Conference dis- 
claims all right to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
under such circumstances except by mutual agreement ; 
therefore, Kesolved . . . that the compact existing 
between the Canada Annual Conference and the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in the United States be, and 
hereby is, dissolved by mutual consent, and that they 
are at liberty to form themselves into a separate Church 
establishment," etc. 

In other words the work of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in a foreign land and under a foreign govern- 
ment has a different status from that in the United 
States of America and the territory does not have the 
same relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church as 
does the territory in the home land which is the United 
States of America. 

So the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America could do in and for its mission work, 



318 AMERICAN METHODISM 

within and under some foreign political jurisdiction, 
what could not be done in, for, or with any territorial 
section in, or under the government of the United States 
of America, and the people in the foreign land could 
do for themselves what similar people in the United 
States of America, the home land of the Church, could 
not do in the same way. In the foreign land the min- 
isters and members could become independent and con- 
trol their work in their own territory, while in the home 
land, the United States of America, no section could 
legally become independent and the General Conference 
could not set off and make independent any territorial 
section. The Church might allow individuals, whether 
few or many, to withdraw by letter or otherwise, or 
the individuals could use their personal liberty but the 
Church could not set off any territorial part or abso- 
lutely abandon a section. In the nation it has been de- 
cided that, though individuals may leave the country 
and cease to be citizens, no state or any number of 
states in a section can become independent and set up 
another national government within that territory of 
the United States of America, and so with the Church 
there is a similar unity of jurisdiction over the entire 
United States, and there is no way of limiting the 
Church of the United States from any part of the 
United States of America. Individuals or bodies of in- 
dividuals may go from it but the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America still continues 
to embrace the entire United States of America though 
it may not have the allegiance of all the people in this 
country. 

The case of Japan is parallel with the independence 
of the Conference in Canada, the right to autonomy or 



INDEPENDENCE IN JAPAN 319 

independence in each case being based on the fact that 
the Conference was on foreign soil and not in the 
United States of America and not under the govern- 
ment of this country ; while the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was primarily, and strictly speaking, a Church 
of and in the United States of America. 

While, therefore, the Methodist Episcopal Church 
must keep itself and its territory intact in the United 
States of America because it is the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America, it has a freer 
hand and a somewhat different control over its missions 
in foreign lands. As long as these foreign missions re- 
main connected with the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the United States of America, they must be governed 
by it, but it may detach the foreign mission and make 
it independent, or the foreign mission may receive or 
assert its independence and become a Church of its own 
country, and so foreign missions, because they are un- 
der other national governments, and for various reasons, 
may become self-governing Churches of their own 
lands, and it is possible in time that all its foreign mis- 
sions shall become independent and the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, the great Mother Church, will be 
geographically, as well as legally, the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America. 

How soon this may come or exactly why it may 
come, we need not determine at this moment, but that 
it may come, and legally could come, is shown by the 
independence of the Canada Conference in 1828, and 
the independence of the Japan Mission and its merging 
with other Methodisms in Japan and the forming of a 
new Methodist Church of Japan in 1907. 

For such separation and independence there may be 



320 AMERICAN METHODISM 

inherent reasons and there may be a necessity growing 
out of peculiar circumstances. Thus the General Con- 
ference of 1828, in considering the case of Canada, re- 
ferred to " the difficulties under which they labor in 
consequence of their union with a foreign ecclesiastical 
government." To the Canadians the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America was " a 
foreign ecclesiastical government." To the Japanese 
it was the same, and in both cases there were patriotic, 
as well as prudential reasons, underlying the desire for 
independence. 

In case of war between the two countries, which we 
only suppose for the purpose of illustration, the mem- 
bers of the foreign Church would be in an awkward 
situation. If, f6r example, there was war between the 
Dominion and the United States, or between Japan and 
the United States (which may the Lord forbid !), the 
Canadian members or the Japanese members of " a for- 
eign ecclesiastical government " in the United States of 
America would be under suspicion of their government 
as belonging to the Church of the enemy, and would 
be suspected by their people of sympathy with the 
enemy, but a self-governing Church within, and of, 
their own nation would allow a free appeal to patriot- 
ism and give it the protective sympathy of the people 
and of their national government-! 

Many other reasons might be given by a people in 
favor of self-government but the present point is that 
the independence of missions in foreign lands is not 
only possible but actual. 



XXX 

THE FEDEEAL COUNCIL OF THE METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL CHUKCH AND THE METHOD- 
IST EPISCOPAL CHUECH, SOUTH 

FKOM the word fraternity to the use of the word 
federation seems a natural and easy evolution 
in the dealings between the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

Fraternity was readily understood, but the exact 
force of the word federation was never distinctly set 
forth or clearly comprehended. As far as the technical 
and philological interpretation of the term federation 
was concerned there could hardly be said to have been 
any real federation. Strictly speaking the word was 
used in an accommodated sense which greatly weak- 
ened the natural and logical definition of the term. 
Certainly there was no such coming together of the 
two Churches so that they combined in one govern- 
ment as did the colonies or states in the early period of 
the United States. 

The best that can be said for it is that the two 
Churches, through committees, called Commissions on 
Federation, sought to reduce friction and promote 
harmony in the working of the two denominations at 
points of contact. In other words it was a sort of 
lubricating agency to make the machinery run smoothly, 
but, strictly speaking, it was not a federation and it did 
not mean a union of the two Churches in any sense. 

321 



322 AMERICAN METHODISM 

When the two commissions met together they formed 
a joint commission but it, like the denominational com- 
mission, had little or no power and anything that was 
proposed by the single commission or the joint com- 
mission, had to be referred to the two General Confer- 
ences for decision. 

After the denominational commissions had been tried 
for some years there was suggested an additional and 
ingenious device that whether suspected or not con- 
tained vast potentialities, and was calculated, or in- 
tended, to ultimate in a comprehensive and powerful 
controlling body. This suggestion was to create a 
joint body, to be called The Federal Council. 

This was a new name and was a new title for a new 
development that contemplated a body with greater 
functions than any that had preceded. The evolution 
was making progress. Beginning with fraternity, then 
passing to federation, the forces were to flower in the 
Federal Council. 

The suggestion would seem to have emanated from 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, for it was 
adopted by the General Conference of that Church in 
1906, and then agreed to in 1908 by the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The title of the new organization seemed to grow out 
of the word federation, but federal was, if anything, a 
stronger word and idea than a qualified federation. 
The Federal Council aimed at something far beyond 
what had been covered by the " Commission on Federa- 
tion," and the advance in the bolder title was indicative 
of an advance in power, as well as in the name of the 
proposed organization. 

Federation was now too weak a term and the stronger 



THE FEDERAL COUNCIL 323 

word federal was employed. Federation was involved 
in it, but federal involved so much more that one might 
imagine that a Federal Council implied that the two 
denominations were combined in one government of 
which the Federal Council was its exponent and that 
the federated denominations were subordinate to the 
little Federal Council as a confederacy would be subor- 
dinate to its Congress. It is more than probable that 
neither Church suspected this or comprehended the pur- 
pose in the minds of the few who were putting together 
this potential engine of government. 

The suggestion was to continue the Commissions on 
Federation and let them go on as before separately or 
as a joint commission, but for certain purposes to bring 
the two commissions together as a Federal Council ; so 
that though composed of the same persons in the 
joint commission, yet with different functions and 
powers when acting as the Federal Council. 

The action passed by the General Conferences of 
both Churches, one in 1906 and the other in 1908, in- 
stituted " a Federal Council for these two Churches, 
which, without interfering with the autonomy of the 
respective Churches and having no legislative functions, 
shall yet be invested with advisory powers in regard to 
world-wide missions, Christian education, the evangel- 
ization of the unchurched masses, and the charitable 
and brotherly adjustment of all misunderstandings and 
conflicts that may arise between the different Churches 
of Methodism." That was a very ambitious pro- 
gramme. The Federal Council was to have power 
of an advisory character over nearly everything in 
the Church — missions, education, and evangelization. 
So comprehensive is this that it seems that the Boards 



324 AMERICAN METHODISM 

and Societies and officers charged with these things 
would have protested had they - realized what was 
involved. 

Then the Council was to bring about an " adjustment 
of all misunderstandings and conflicts that may arise 
between the different Churches of Methodism.' 1 '' It 
would be quite an undertaking to compose differences 
between the two denominations having the Federal 
Council, but to do this for all the denominations of 
Methodism was establishing a patronizing and pretty 
pretentious protectorate over the other Methodistic 
bodies which the other Churches would probably 
resent. 

That was only the beginning, and the evolution was 
to go on. The two federation commissions met in 
April, 1910, and recommending that the former action 
in regard to the Federal Council be amended and this 
was agreed to by the next General Conferences, the 
Church South in 1910 and the Methodist Episcopal 
in 1912. 

The changes reveal the inner possibilities of the ar- 
rangement and the startling development of power. 
The advisory power over the general work of the 
Church remained the same. The words " without 
interfering with the autonomy of the respective 
Churches and having no legislative functions " were 
taken out, which raises the question whether the 
Federal Council in the future might attempt leg- 
islation and interfere with the autonomy of the 
two Churches. The words "and the charitable and 
brotherly adjustment of all misunderstandings and 
conflicts that may arise between the different Churches 
of Methodism " are eliminated. It was, therefore, no 



THE FEDERAL COUNCIL 325 

longer to be merely a " brotherly adjustment," but 
there is a new grasp at authority and a stronger asser- 
tion of power, so that it read : " to have full power to 
hear and determine finally, without appeal from its de- 
cisions, all cases of conflict or misunderstandings be- 
tween the two branches of Methodism.'' 

That looks like a coup d'etat. The same astute 
minds seemed to be developing a plan to unite the two 
Churches without uniting them legally, and without the 
denominations knowing what was being done. Suddenly 
the little Federal Council is clothed with " full power " 
and when it makes its decisions the parties concerned 
are to be " without appeal." Lo ! it claims to be a 
power above the General Conference, and the chair- 
man of the Committee on Church Relations in the 
General Conference of the Church South, in 1914, as- 
serted that the Federal Council was " a Supreme Court 
beyond the jurisdiction of either General Conference." 
So the General Conference was to be powerless, unable 
to hear a protest or to right a wrong. The final power 
of the General Conference was to be taken from it and 
transferred to a few men who though bearing the lofty 
title of Federal Council were really nothing more than 
a committee of a General Conference or of two General 
Conferences. 

The arrangement was inequitable for it was not fair 
to put individual and Church rights, including property 
rights, at the mercy of a few men acting in any such 
way, and, furthermore, the provision " without appeal " 
is unconstitutional, for under the Constitution of the 
Church the right of appeal is guaranteed, and even the 
humblest individual in the Church cannot be deprived 
of the right of appeal, and if the individual cannot be 



326 AMERICAN METHODISM 

so deprived neither can the local Church with its prop- 
erty and other rights be denied an appeal. The Gen- 
eral Conference cannot deny the right, and the General 
Conference has no right to create a body superior to 
itself. The right of appeal persists even if " without 
appeal " has been written into the act, and, what is 
more, the individual and the local Church may have 
recourse to the civil courts. 

One must assume that the Genera] Conferences did 
not perceive the comprehensive scope of this arrange- 
ment for a Federal Council. Probably very few out- 
side of those who drew up the plan noticed it even in a 
casual way, and possibly those who framed it did not 
realize its full force. In all probability the most of the 
delegates looked upon it in an indefinite way, and pre- 
sumed it was simply to carry out the fraternal idea and 
to endeavor to make a " brotherly adjustment " of pos- 
sible difficulties, but few could have thought it had 
such a power in relation to the great educational, evan- 
gelistic, and missionary work of the two denominations, 
and, particularly, that it was to be all-powerful in de- 
ciding questions of right, so that no aggrieved party 
could make an appeal. 

As a matter of fact, the record of the 1912 General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church shows 
that, if it had any, it was only a very hasty considera- 
tion, and that on it there was absolutely no debate. It 
was presented at the closing period of the Conference 
when reports were being rushed through with little if 
any deliberation, and the report was not explained or 
discussed. 

That the method is impracticable is seen in the fact 
that this Federal Council could not enforce its own de- 



THE FEDERAL COUNCIL 327 

crees and its decisions, therefore, would be impotent. 
It is no wonder in view of all these facts that when the 
very first case was presented to the Federal Councils 
the difficulties of operation were so great that the 
Council reached no decision but agreed to hold no more 
meetings until the General Conferences of the two de- 
nominations, in 1916 and 1918, review the subject. 

The probability is that the Federal Council arrange- 
ment will have to be recast or totally abandoned, for 
when the denominations realize the possible dangers of 
a small body so empowered as to advise about almost 
everything, and the people perceive that it can dictate 
as to property and other vested rights, it is more than 
likely that they will demand that it be divested of its 
presumptive powers, if indeed they do not absolutely 
destroy its existence even in name. 



XXXI 
PENDING SUGGESTIONS OF UNION 

CERTAIN suggestions of denominational union 
are now pending before several bodies, par- 
ticularly the Methodist Episcopal Church, the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Methodist 
Protestant Church. 

The most conspicuous proposition is one that grew 
out of the deliberations of a joint commission made up 
of the Commissions on Federation of the above men- 
tioned bodies. 

This joint commission met in Baltimore in 1910 and 
took steps towards the formulation of a suggestion of a 
method of union. 

Later, in 1911, the joint commission issued a tenta- 
tive outline suggestion that might be considered as a 
proposed basis for union, though the members of the 
joint commission did not commit themselves to it, and 
it is said did not regard it as a plan of union. Indeed 
the joint commission by formal resolution said it should 
not be regarded as a plan but merely as indicative of 
"the result" of the commission's "exploration in 
search of a basis of union." 

Emanating from this joint commission even in this 
indefinite form the supreme bodies of the respective 
Churches were at liberty to take it up for consideration, 
but they were under no obligation to regard it as a 
formulated and matured plan of union. 

328 



PENDING SUGGESTIONS OF UNION 329 

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, which convened in May, 1912, did not pass upon 
it, or even hear it read, and the commissioners of this 
Church did not regard it as " a plan." 

The General Conference of the Methodist Protestant 
Church, which met in the same month of the same 
year favored it as a " tentative plan " but took no def- 
inite action on the suggestion looking to reorganization. 

Two years later, namely, in May, 1914, the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
took action on the report of the joint commission say- 
ing that it " considers the plan outlined in the sugges- 
tions ... as tentative " and " hereby declares it- 
self in favor of the unification ... in accordance 
with this general plan of reorganization . . . after 
it has been accepted by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church." 

Because of this action it would seem that the prop- 
osition has been by some attributed to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, though, it came from the joint 
commission, and, though, two years previously it had 
been agreed to by the General Conference of the 
Methodist Protestant Church, which was the first body 
to give its existence formal recognition. 

It will also be noted that the acceptance of the Gen- 
eral Conference of the Church South of the " tenta- 
tive " suggestion was not unqualified, but was condi- 
tioned upon its acceptance by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. So it declared itself " in favor of the unifica- 
tion " " after it had been accepted by the Methodist 
Episcopal Church " and the agreement, therefore, was 
not in effect until the plan had been agreed to by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 



330 AMERICAN METHODISM 

This socalled " tentative plan " proposes that the ter- 
ritory of the combining Churches, if they do combine, 
shall be divided into great sections, one of which shall 
be made up of what has been known as the " South," 
which sections shall be self-governing, making their 
own laws and electing their own bishops, each section 
having its own quadrennial jurisdictional Conference. 

Then it is proposed to have over all an indefinite 
body, or practically undefined General Conference, the 
time for the meeting of which is undesignated, to have 
" power over all matters distinctly connectional " which 
have not been left to the quadrennial conferences, and 
to confirm those elected bishops, and the " tentative " 
scheme suggests " that neither the General Conference 
nor any of the quadrennial conferences be invested with 
final authority to interpret the constitutionality of its 
own actions" but nothing is said as to where such in- 
terpretative power shall be vested. Presumably it will 
be somewhere outside of the imaginative General Con- 
ference. This ghostly scheme is so crude that it is 
neither a plan nor the basis of a plan. 

The general criticism upon the document will prob- 
ably be that it is too indefinite as to important partic- 
ulars, and leaves so many things unstated or unsettled, 
that the majority of thinkers could not agree to it be- 
cause no one could certainly tell what would be the out- 
come or what might be worked into such a skeleton 
suggestion. Indeed the skeleton stands out so sug- 
gestively that it is likely to frighten away many friends 
of real union. 

The one thing that is manifest is that this professed 
union does propose that the Church shall be divided 
into practically or actually self-governing geographical 



PENDING SUGGESTIONS OF UNION 331 

sections, one in the South, and others in the North and 
West. 

Such an arrangement might seem desirable to some 
in tne old South as it would keep that section intact, 
but the North and West will probably reject such an 
adjustment because it would sectionalize them in the 
Church and in the nation, and practically or actually 
destroy the territorial, as well as the sentimental unity 
of the ecclesiasticism. Hence it would no longer be 
truly a nation-wide Church with the same laws every- 
where. 

So they would be likely to hold that, instead of 
uniting, it would be dividing the Church, for the result 
would not really be a unity in a homogeneous Church 
of the whole country, but a series of sectional bodies 
connected by a rope of sand and that an invisible one, 
excepting to persons possessed of most powerful imagina- 
tions who might fancy they could see it through the 
medium of a mythical General Conference meeting no 
one knows when or where, and, if it does meet, possess- 
ing little or no authority. 

Many also will object because while the other 
Churches would be broken into sections, the South would 
be consolidated and the same " South " would control 
the South. So while the historic and nation-wide 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and any other Church, in 
the arrangement would be shattered and broken up into 
sectional governments, practically all the supposed or 
possible advantage would be with what had been the 
Church South. Thus Methodist Episcopalians already 
oppose the proposal because it would actually divide 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, and instead of being a 
real union would be one of the worst forms of disunion. 



332 AMERICAN METHODISM 

In like manner, and for various reasons persons 
prominent in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
raise objections to the suggested method of union by 
dissolution. 

One leading minister in that Church wants the 
quadrennial conferences eliminated and the single Gen- 
eral Conference for the whole Church perpetuated. 

Some, indeed, deny that the Church South wants the 
" plan " at all ; and one of its noted ministers calls the 
action of its General Conference on this matter a 
" freak action." 

One of the strongest objections to what is supposed 
generally to be a new tentative suggestion is that it is 
not new at all. On the contrary it is an old Southern 
idea that has never been acceptable to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

Its origin can be traced back to a Southern leader in 
the historic General Conference of 1844. In that Con- 
ference Doctor Capers, afterwards Bishop Capers of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, offered what was es- 
sentially the same proposition. His proposal was to 
have a Northern body with its own General Con- 
ference and a Southern body with its General Con- 
ference, making two self-governing bodies with a com- 
mon relationship in certain practical operations. The 
General Conference of 1844, however, would not ac- 
cept the proposition, for it perceived that it meant a 
radical division making two independent Churches. In 
some form this idea has been revamped from time to 
time and now has been renewed in what is called the 
" tentative plan " of 1911, allowed to go forth from the 
joint commission and approved in 1912 by the General 
Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, and, 



PENDING SUGGESTIONS OF UNION 333 

in some sense, in 1914 by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. Though varying in some details it is 
merely a modification of the Capers' plan of 1844 which 
was presented on what proved to be the eve of the 
withdrawal of certain Southern Annual Conferences. 
Then the General Conference would not have anything 
to do with it. 

If the General Conference would not agree to it then, 
it seems improbable that the Methodist Episcopal Church 
will accept it now when the conditions are less favor- 
able. 

The second pending question of union relates particu- 
larly to the Methodist Protestant Church. The Gen- 
eral Conference of this Church in 1912 after agreeing 
to the "tentative plan" for consolidation with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, decided, at the very same session, 
to form a union with the United Brethren Church. 

"Whether this meant lack of faith in the so-called 
" tentative " scheme, or a realization that it was too re- 
mote, is not stated, but the very same General Confer- 
ence did decide to combine with the United Brethren, 
which is also a " Methodistic " body. 

Negotiations have been carried on between these two 
bodies during the period beginning with 1912, and the 
matter is now pending. That, or when, the consum- 
mation will be reached, is regarded as an uncertainty, 
but propositions and negotiations between the Method- 
ist Protestants and the United Brethren still proceed. 

The third pending question relates to the Evangel- 
ical Association and the United Evangelical Church. 
Efforts are now being made to effect a reunion, and 
commissions representing both bodies have been en- 



334 AMERICAN METHODISM 

gaged in negotiations. The General Conference of the 
United Evangelical Church has received the proposition 
with some favor and the General Conference of the 
Evangelical Association will consider the matter at its 
next session. 

The fourth pending question relates to the Colored 
Episcopal Methodists. The " tentative plan " previously 
referred to involves the setting off of the colored min- 
isters and members into a separate " quadrennial juris- 
diction." The paper sent out by the joint commission 
suggests that the colored people have a direct relation 
to the main body, though with their own " quadrennial 
conference," but the General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, however, recommends 
" that the colored membership of the various Methodist 
bodies be formed into an independent organization 
holding fraternal relations with the reorganized and 
united Church." This has become the starting point of 
many queries and requires a separate treatment. 



XXXII 
PROPOSED UNION OF COLOKED METHODISTS 

THE people of color who have been under Meth- 
odistic influence have from a very early period 
had an impulse towards independence among 
themselves as separated from the white people. 

Thus in 1813 colored people went off from the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church and founded the Union Amer- 
ican Methodist Episcopal Church for people of their 
race ; in 1816 the African Methodist Episcopal Church 
for people of the negro race was started by colored peo- 
ple who went out from the Methodist Episcopal Church ; 
and in 1817 other colored persons withdrew from the 
same denomination and organized the African Method- 
ist Episcopal Zion Church. 

This was following a common impulse of human na- 
ture, namely, the desire for self-government and to 
have intimate association with their own kind, a desire 
which has been asserted in some form by people of 
every race, and no fault is found with the existence of 
these independent denominations for people of color, 
and it seems there never was miAm, if any, criticism 
upon, or opposition to their organization or continued 
existence by the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

At one time, prior to the Civil War, the colored 
membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
numbered 207,766. This number was diminished dur- 
ing and just after that war until in 1866 only 78,742 

335 



336 AMERICAN METHODISM 

colored members were reported. In regard to this loss, 
Bishop McTyeire of that Church wrote : " The two 
African Churches, hitherto operating mainly in the 
North, appropriated a large share of them ; another 
portion went to Northern Methodism, which had also 
come down to divide the spoils. To the latter went 
many of the preachers and exhorters, who made the 
most efficient agents for extending their new organi- 
zation in the Southern field ; and some of them have 
more than once figured creditably in their General 
Conferences." 1 

In that year, 1866, with the reduced colored mem- 
bership, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, began 
its effort to set off its colored people into an independ- 
ent Church, which effort was completed in 1870, when 
they were formed into the Colored Methodist Episcopal 
Church of America, aided materially by the Church 
South, bishops of which formally set apart the first 
bishops of this new colored body. 

At the present time there are several independent 
Churches of colored Episcopal Methodists, besides the 
colored ministers and members who belong to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Thus there are the African Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 
and the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church of Amer- 
ica, which have a \ ery considerable membership, and a 
small body called the American Methodist Episcopal 
Church. All these are independent denominations of 
the colored race. 

Eecent statistics show that the African Methodist 

1 Bishop McTyeire, "History of Methodism," Nashville, 1888, p. 
670. 



UNION OF COLOKED METHODISTS 337 

Episcopal Church has 5,000 ministers, and 620,000 
members ; the African Methodist Episcopal Zion 
Church has 3,552 ministers, and 568,608 members ; the 
Colored Methodist Episcopal Church has 2,993 minis- 
ters, and 236,077 members ; the Union American Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church has 160 ministers, and 18,500 
members. 

These figures now, in 1915, are about two years old, 
and, therefore, a percentage of increase should be esti- 
mated. 

Again, these do not include the colored people in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church who number about three 
hundred thousand more, and they should be added to 
approximate the aggregate number of colored Episco- 
pal Methodists in the United States. 

This would show 1,454,730 independent Episcopal 
Methodists by the latest available statistics, and, add- 
ing twenty per cent, increase in two or three years, 
namely, 290,946, the total would be 1,745,676. Then, 
adding say 300,000 colored people in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, there would be a body of over two 
millions (2,045,676) colored Episcopal Methodists of 
all kinds. 

A good many years ago suggestions were made look- 
ing towards the union of some of the Colored Method- 
ist Episcopal Churches. Thus as far back as 1864, 
towards the close of the Civil War, a convention of 
representatives of the African Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion 
Church was held in the city of Philadelphia, for the 
purpose of bringing about the unification of these 
Churches. In 1868, however, the General Conference 
of the African Methodist Episcopal Church decided 



338 AMERICAN METHODISM 

that it could not enter into the consolidation on the 
basis proposed. 

Later there were renewed negotiations for union be- 
tween the two largest bodies of Episcopal Methodists, 
namely, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. These 
negotiations were carried on for a considerable period. 

For a time the prospects for their union seemed 
promising, but organic unity never was consummated, 
and the effort which had been inaugurated years before 
ceased, at least for the time being. Thus, though 
efforts for union have continued during fifty-one years, 
still these two important Churches have not yet united. 

Though organic unity did not succeed at that time, 
nevertheless the colored Episcopal Methodists were 
drawing nearer. 

As a proof that they were coming closer together, 
we have the fact that the bishops of the three larger 
bodies joined together and formed what they called 
" The Federated Council of the Bishops of the African 
Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist 
Episcopal Zion Church, and the Colored Methodist 
Episcopal Church " to deal with mutual questions that 
did not require legislation or other action by the Gen- 
eral Conferences. 

This " Federated Council " held its first meeting in 
Washington, District of Columbia, February 12-17, 
1908, and its second meeting, February 9-12, 1911, in 
Mobile, Alabama. 

The First Council considered and acted upon such 
questions as a common hymnal, one Catechism for the 
three denominations, a uniform Liturgy, and a uniform 
public service for the Sabbath day. On all these the 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 339 

Federated Council made favorable recommendations 
for action by the three General Conferences. The 
Council also approved of a plan of mutual transfer be- 
tween the three Churches, and also agreed upon a plan 
for the protection of the three denominations from the 
passage of improper preachers from one body to an- 
other. While this did not go to the point of organic 
union of the three colored denominations, it did mean 
a practical federation of the potent leaders of the three 
Churches in the banding together of their bishops in a 
Council for practical purposes. 

The Second Federated Council reaffirmed the acts 
of the First Council, agreed " to meet biennially here- 
after," and " that the quadrennial addresses of the 
respected federated bodies be published in the chief 
organ of each denomination represented." 

To the Second Federated Council came a paper in 
favor of organic union between the three Churches 
which was signed by sixteen of the General Officers of 
these denominations including editors, secretaries, and 
presidents of colleges. 

The petition approved of the "joint council for 
the purpose of encouraging the spirit of federation 
among the Churches of these (three) Methodist 
bodies," which " has resulted in much good in bring- 
ing about more harmonious relationship between 
them," and " will accentuate the movement of still 
closer ties, and bring us nearer the realization of the 
organic union." 

Then the paper proceeded : 

" Whereas, We believe that organic union of these 
bodies of Methodism will be for the best interest of 
the common cause we represent in the development of 



340 AMERICAN METHODISM 

a race, the uplift of humanity, and the establishment 
of God's kingdom on earth ; and 

" Whereas, We believe that organic union will come 
only as the result of some definite act and specific 
declaration on the part of the fathers of the Church, 
backed up and supported by those who have been 
placed in position of trust and responsibility in the 
management of the various affairs of business connected 
with the Churches here represented ; and 

" Whereas, "We believe the time is now ripe for such 
definite act and such specific declaration ; therefore 
be it 

" Resolved, first, That the bishops now assembled be 
asked to make public and declare themselves on the 
question of organic union, and that such declaration be 
published throughout the Church, through all the 
organs of the several Churches here represented. 

" Resolved, second, That as an evidence of good faith 
and for the purpose of bringing this question more 
directly before the Church tribunals, and through them 
to the body of the people, there be created here and 
now a special commission to be styled as a Commission 
on Organic Union. 

" Resolved, third, That said Commission shall consist 
of the bishops of the three Churches, the General 
Officers, nine ministers (three from each) and six lay- 
men (two from each Church). 

" Resolved, fourth, That said Commission be required 
to meet and formulate plans and propositions as to the 
basis of Organic Union ; said plans and propositions to 
be submitted to the General Conference of the re- 
spective Churches in their next regular sessions." 

They also asked that the General Officers and the 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 341 

presidents of their schools be made regular members 
of the General Federated Council. 

Professor Hawkins " stated that it was the consensus 
of opinion of the General Officers that there should be 
organic union between the three Churches represented," 
and the Reverend J. F. McDonald, editor of the Western 
Christian Becorder, "thought the petition ought to 
be given an immediate consideration " and that " the 
bishops ought to declare themselves on the subject." 

Bishop Walters " expressed himself as being in favor 
of organic union, but (this) did not seem to be the 
Lord's time for it. He gave the history of the develop- 
ment of the subject, and said he was not as enthusiastic 
as he had been heretofore, yet, if it was to be voted 
upon, he would vote for it." 

Bishop Smith said he was "in favor of organic 
union," but thought they " ought to make haste slowly," 
and "further stated that he thought a copy of the 
petition should be placed in the hands of each bishop 
for careful study ; for, if the matter was pressed to a 
vote, we might have, instead of three churches, six." 

The record shows that, " indeed, all the bishops ex- 
pressed themselves in favor of the union, but thought 
in order to make it permanent they should make haste 
slowly." 

The result was that, on motion of Bishop Phillips, 
the petition was referred to the Committee on Resolu- 
tions. 

Later the Federated Council adopted the following : 

" Besolved, That we here determine to use our best 
efforts as bishops representing these three great Negro 
bodies of Methodists, to use every possible means to 
encourage the spirit of unity and fraternity among the 



342 AMERICAN METHODISM 

entire membership, and to make these bodies as far as 
possible a powerful means of promoting the Redeemer's 
kingdom on earth : 

" Resolved, That this Federation of Bishops use its 
best efforts to promote the establishment of a body in 
our Fatherland to be known as the ' United Episcopal 
Methodist Church in Africa ' ; and, W/iereas, the federa- 
tion of these Methodist bodies means more than mere 
agreement ; and Whereas, it means cooperation and 
fortification ; therefore be it : 

" Resolved, That it is agreed and covenanted that we, 
the Federated Board of Bishops, will not practice nor 
countenance the practice of encouraging or fostering 
internal dissensions, ruptures or rebellion in the local 
Churches or the conferences of one another's connec- 
tion." 

In the matter of a United Church in Africa, it was 
agreed to bring the proposition before the next session 
of their several General Conferences, "and urge the 
appointment of commissioners from each body who 
shall constitute a United Commission, whose duties it 
shall be to arrange a plan for the promotion of this im- 
portant object." 

In the meantime a movement was inaugurated within 
the Methodist Episcopal Church to promote the unifica- 
tion of colored Methodists who had an episcopal form 
of government. 

In the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church held in 1904 it ordered a Commission on 
Federation with two purposes, one looking towards 
federation or union among white Methodists, and the 
other looking towards unity or federation among col- 
ored Methodists. The act of 1904 reiterated points in 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 343 

the action of 1900, but enlarged the powers of the 
Commission, so that not only was it to meet like com- 
missions, particularly from certain indicated Churches 
and to take action " looking towards the consolidation 
of those Churches with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church," but also, and specifically, it was ordered " that 
the Commission on Federation take such steps as it may 
deem wise and necessary to bring about a closer unity 
between the Colored Methodist Churches having an 
episcopal form of government." This plainly looked 
towards a unification of such Methodistic colored people. 

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, held in 1908, went still further. The Commis- 
sion during the previous quadrennium had addressed a 
letter to the senior bishop of each of the "various 
Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches," and in it said : 
" We greatly rejoice in the intellectual, moral, and re- 
ligious progress of the colored race, and believe that 
such progress would be promoted by the increase of 
fraternity between the various branches of Episcopal 
Methodism among colored people." The letter also 
suggested the appointment of commissions by the 
several bodies, and observed that " the meeting of the 
authorized representatives of almost two millions of 
colored Church members for fraternal and prayerful 
consultation about the interests of their race would of 
itself be a very impressive lesson to all the Churches 
and to the whole country." 

The report also stated that " The communication was 
kindly received and in February last twenty-six of the 
twenty-eight bishops of the African Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion 
Church, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church, 



344 AMERICAN METHODISM 

met in Washington City, and agreed to recommend to 
their respective bodies the adoption of a common hym- 
nal, a common order of service, and a common cate- 
chism, and that no one should be received from one of 
these Churches by another unless he possessed an in- 
dorsement as to his moral character by the Church 
which he desired to leave." 

The General Conference further adopted the follow- 
ing : " That we rejoice in the increasing evidences of 
closer fellowship and prospective uuion between the 
various branches of Colored Episcopal Methodism in 
the United States as one of the most striking and hope- 
ful indications of the growth of the spirit of Christian 
Unity, and hereby instruct the Commission on Federa- 
tion to further these results as far as practicable." 

In addition a separate commission was ordered in re- 
lation to colored Episcopal Methodists. The action 
reads : " That a Commission, consisting of one bishop, 
three ministers, and three laymen, be appointed by the 
Board of Bishops to serve during the ensuing quadren- 
nium and report to the General Conference of 1912; 
whose duty it shall be to confer with similar commis- 
sions, if such shall be appointed, from the African 
Methodist Episcopal, the African Methodist Episcopal 
Zion, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches, 
concerning such questions as may lead to more har- 
monious cooperation in extending the kingdom of 
Christ," and the Bishop on the Commission was to 
notify the several General Conferences of the willing- 
ness of the Commission " to confer with similar Com- 
missions from these Churches." 

This Commission was entitled the " Commission on 
the Federation of Colored Churches." 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 345 

So the Methodist Episcopal Church had now two com- 
missions, one to confer with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, and other white Churches, and a second 
to confer with colored bodies of the Methodist Episcopal 
class, showing a greater specialization by giving to a 
different commission the special work of bringing 
about federation, cooperation, and unity of the Colored 
Episcopal Methodisms. 

The 1912 General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church continued the two commissions with 
their separate functions, the one for white people and 
the other for the colored, but instead of one bishop on 
the " Commission on Federation of Colored Churches," 
enlarged the commission by increasing the number to 
three bishops. 

In this General Conference the report which was 
adopted said : " It is plainly our duty to assist in every 
practical way in allaying the competition among the 
colored Methodist Churches, and thus increase the effi- 
ciency of Methodism's combined service to the Negro 
race," and the Conference ordered the Commission, 
" whose duty it shall be to confer with similar com- 
missions, if such shall be appointed, from the African 
Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal 
Zion, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches, 
concerning such questions as may lead to more 
harmonious cooperation in extending the kingdom of 
Christ." 

This Methodist Episcopal Commission of 1912 met in 
the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, on the 8th of 
January, 1915, and, after studying the acts of the Gen- 
eral Conferences bearing upon the Commission from the 
time it was first considered, formulated a statement as 



346 AMERICAN METHODISM 

to their authority and specified what they were em- 
powered to do as follows : 

" Whereas, the General Conference of 1904 directed 
i that the (then) Commission on Federation take such 
steps as it may deem wise and necessary to bring about 
a closer unity between the Colored Methodist Churches 
having an episcopal form of government ; ' the General 
Conference in 1908 spoke of ' the prospective union be- 
tween the various branches of Colored Episcopal Method- 
ism,' and instructed ' the Commission to further these 
results,' and made a commission ' to confer with similar 
commissions ' of the Churches as aforestated and for 
the purposes named ; and the 1912 General Conference 
reaffirmed the preceding acts and said : ' It is plainly 
our duty to assist in every practical way in allaying the 
competition among the Colored Methodist Churches 
and thus increase the efficiency of Methodism's com- 
bined service to the Negro race,' and the same General 
Conference ordered a ' Commission on the Federation of 
Colored Churches ' ' whose duty it shall be to confer 
with similar commissions, if such shall be appointed, 
from the African Methodist Episcopal, African Method- 
ist Episcopal Zion, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal 
Churches, concerning such questions as may lead to 
more harmonious cooperation in extending the kingdom 
of Christ;' 

" Therefore, be it 

" JBesolved, 1. That it is the duty of this l Commis- 
sion on Federation of Colored Churches,' first, to pro- 
mote the union of the Colored Methodist Episcopal 
Churches ; second, to further their federation where they 
are not prepared for organic unity ; and, third, to pro- 
mote fraternity and Christian cooperation. 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 347 

" Resolved, 2. That it is the further duty of this 
commission to consider such questions as vitally concern 
our own colored ministry and membership in their re- 
lationship to the larger question of the organic union of 
Methodism. 

" Resolved, 3. That in connection with these duties, 
we recognize the propriety of seeking to avoid unneces- 
sary duplications of Churches and educational institu- 
tions ; to prevent the passing from one denomination to 
another of improper ministers and members ; and to 
reach wise understandings for the practical welfare and 
enlarged efficiency of the said Churches, including the 
matter of better preparation for and in the ministry. 

" Resolved, 4. That a committee be appointed to 
open correspondence with similar commissions of the said 
Colored Churches or, where there are no such commis- 
sions, with the Churches themselves, or with representa- 
tive men of the said Churches, in order to ascertain 
what these Churches are willing to do in the matter of 
federation, union, and practical cooperation." 

A committee conveyed or communicated this action 
to the representatives of the three bodies mentioned and 
invited them to be present at and to participate in a 
joint meeting with the commission from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. Favorable responses were received 
and commissioners from the three Churches were 
selected, and the four commissions met in joint session 
on "Wednesday, the 30th of June, 1915, in the city of 
Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Three meetings of the joint commission and meetings 
of the several church commissions met that day and 
many matters were canvassed. The deliberations 
covered three general topics, namely, Cooperation, 



348 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Federation, and Organic Unity, and the joint commis- 
sion planned cooperation in various movements and 
agreed to federated action in various particulars by 
agreeing to do or not to do certain specified things. 
On the question of organic union there was a general 
acceptance of the principle, and some of the commis- 
sioners were individually and emphatically in favor of 
a combined Colored Episcopal Methodism in one great 
Church. However it was deemed prudent at that mo- 
ment not to be very definite or specific, so the final 
formulation expressed the idea in general terms. 

The sessions of this joint commission were harmoni- 
ous and manifested a fraternal spirit, and the perpetuity 
of the body was ensured by a voted agreement to re- 
convene on call. 

Out of this first joint commission representing the 
colored people in four Methodist Episcopal Churches 
something important in the nature of organic unity or 
close federation may develop. 

This movement, inaugurated by authority from the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
and the participation of its colored representatives in 
this joint commission for the purposes stated has started 
questions as to the full meaning and intended or prob- 
able outcome of the movement. Thus it has started 
questions as to the present and future relations of the 
colored people in the Methodist Episcopal Church to 
the colored Episcopal Methodists outside that Church 
and organized in independent denominations. Again it 
is asked whether the effort to bring about organic unity 
between Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches means a 
united Colored Episcopal Methodism which involves in 
it the colored ministry and membership of the Method- 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 349 

ist Episcopal Church, or a changed adjustment of the 
relation of its present colored membership to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church itself. 

But a similar question is forced upon the attention 
by the " tentative " proposition, or " suggestion," sent 
out from the joint commission of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and the Methodist Protestant Church in May, 1911, 
and approved in May, 1912, by the Methodist Prot- 
estant General Conference, and qualifiedly approved in 
May, 1914, by the General Conference of the Method- 
its Episcopal Church, South, which latter approval has 
caused some to consider it as a proposition for union 
emanating from the Church South. 

Though it was declared by the joint commission to be 
not a " plan " but simply a tentative suggestion " to be 
regarded simply as illustrative of the present status of 
(the Commission's) deliberations," nevertheless, by 
many, the outline has been seriously taken as suggest- 
ing what is called unification by " reorganization," and 
the division of the country into sectional Quadrennial 
Conferences, with the colored Episcopal Methodists in 
a quadrennial conference by themselves. 

One conspicuous proposition in that tentative docu- 
ment is that which meditates the setting off of the 
colored people in a body by themselves, and that all 
colored Episcopal Methodists be united in one body. 
The report in question suggested that the colored 
people in any of the three bodies represented in the 
commission " and such organizations of colored Method- 
ists as may enter into agreement with them may be 
constituted and reorganized as one of the Quadrennial 
or Jurisdictional Conferences of the proposed reorgani- 



350 AMEKICAN METHODISM 

zation," but the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, in 1914, voted a recommend- 
ation that the colored people " be formed into an inde- 
pendent organization, holding fraternal relations with 
the reorganized and united Church." 

That the colored people shall not be organically con- 
nected with it, or with it in union with the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, but that they shall be organically 
independent, is understood to be the attitude of the 
Church South, and it is asserted that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, makes as one of its conditions 
of possible union with the Methodist Episcopal Church 
such an elimination of the colored people now in con- 
nection with the latter Church. 

That raises the question as to what may be done with 
the colored persons in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
or what they may do with themselves. 

If union between the great Methodist Episcopal 
Churches is desirable and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, will not unite with the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, as long as the latter has colored 
ministers and members and colored delegates in its 
General Conferences, and that view is corroborated by 
the fact that the Church South practically has no 
colored members and absolutely no colored delegates 
in its General Conferences, it is plain that there will be 
no union at the present time and as long as that atti- 
tude is persisted in, unless the colored people make 
some other arrangement or some other arrangement is 
made for them, and such an arrangement as will sepa- 
rate them from, or make them independent of, the 
white people in this Church. 

Some, however, not impressed by the necessity of 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 351 

making the colored people independent in order to 
effect a union between two white Methodist Episcopal 
Churches, might not regard this as a sufficient reason, 
and yet they might favor the separation on other 
grounds. 

It is evident that there may be other reasons for such 
a separation, for the present question of union between 
two white Churches, or mainly white, was not before 
the Church when in the early period colored ministers 
and people withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and organized independent denominations for 
people of color. So some may see other reasons at the 
present time. 

With some the mere desire for self-government might 
be a sufficient motive for independence. With others 
there might be a conviction that to be thrown upon 
their own resources might be for the good of the people 
made independent and that there would be a more 
rapid and a more symmetrical development because 
they would have to direct their own affairs. Such 
reasons might be regarded by many as quite enough to 
induce them to favor independence, while different 
reasons might influence others. 

The proposition to which reference has been made 
would particularly affect the colored people in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, of whom there are said 
to be about 300,000. 

It would imply their independence, or their separa- 
tion from the Methodist Episcopal Church and then 
their combination with one or more of the existing 
colored denominations composed of Episcopal Method- 
ists. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, no longer 



352 AMERICAN METHODISM 

has this problem within itself, for some forty-five years 
ago its colored membership became independent, and 
formed the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church. So 
the question is one for the Methodist Episcopal Church 
and its colored ministers and members. 

They will have to study and determine the desira- 
bility and feasibility of such a separation and some 
form of independence, and act if it is found desirable 
and feasible. 

The question may be : Will the Methodist Episcopal 
Church set off the colored people, or will the colored 
people seek a voluntary withdrawal, or will there be a 
mutual and cordial agreement ? 

What the Church would like to do, or what the 
colored people would like to do cannot be definitely 
stated at this moment, though possibly some recent 
events may contain a partial revelation. 

In the first place, a few years ago the Reverend 
Bishop Isaiah B. Scott, the Methodist Episcopal Colored 
Missionary Bishop in Africa, issued a circular address 
proposing that the colored people in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church become an independent Methodist 
Episcopal Church for the people of their own color. 

Then a convention of colored ministers and laymen 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church met in the month 
of October, 1914, in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, 
considered this very question of segregation, and voted 
their willingness to be set off as one of the suggested 
quadrennial jurisdictions. The resolution the conven- 
tion adopted read as follows : " With the light now be- 
fore us, we approve the plan of the Federation Com- 
mission for the reorganization of Methodism providing 
for jurisdictional or quadrennial conferences with iden- 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 353 

tical powers and privileges, one of which is to be com- 
posed of the affiliated colored membership." 

Of course this convention was not constituted by 
ecclesiastical authority but came together voluntarily 
on call and was self -controlled, and yet it was composed 
of representative persons, and their judgment may be 
regarded as fairly representative of the feeling of many 
of their people at that time. 

However, as there has been no very general expres- 
sion of opinion given in an authoritative manner, it is 
not perfectly clear what all wish or what the majority 
will desire, 

There are, nevertheless, race aspirations and desires 
for independence and self-government among all peo- 
ples which must be taken into account. How these 
natural desires will assert themselves cannot now be 
definitely predicted. It is further complicated by 
the fact that in the solution both races have an interest 
and may have something to say. 

In the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, there are 
practically no colored people, but in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church a minority of the membership is 
colored and this colored minority has its own local 
churches and ministers and its own Annual Confer- 
ences and its own District Superintendents, or Presid- 
ing Elders, of its own race, so that, if it was desired, a 
separate body could easily be constituted. 

To this minority the great majority of the Church 
has always been kind and helpful, and that always has 
been recognized, but it may be that race ambitions and 
the natural demand for self-control may impel the col- 
ored minority to prefer independence which will per- 
mit them to elect bishops, as well as other church 



354 AMERICAN METHODISM 

officers from their own race, and enable them to man- 
age their church affairs in their own way. 

Then there may be a growing conviction on the part 
of the colored people that their own development would 
be more rapid if they had the responsibility of govern- 
ing themselves, and of planning and prosecuting the 
work among and for their own people. 

The total colored membership in the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church numbers about 300,000 while the entire 
membership of the denomination is not far from four 
millions. 

The entire colored population of the United States is 
estimated as about ten millions, so that it is plain that 
the Methodist Episcopal Church has not been getting, 
or caring for all, or for any very large proportion, of the 
colored people of the country. 

What effect a consideration of these facts will have 
cannot be positively predicted. Then there is a further 
fact of some importance, namely, that the great major- 
ity of the colored Methodists are in denominations by 
themselves. There are more than a million and a half 
of communicants in the independent Colored Methodist 
Churches, as compared with less than one-third of a 
million of colored communicants in the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. Thus there is only a small minority, 
compared with the aggregate mass, in the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church with its millions of white mem- 
bers. 

A philosophic historian would infer from these facts 
that the colored people as a whole prefer to be eccle- 
siastically by themselves in their own independent 
Churches, and that it would not be improbable that the 
colored people now in the Methodist Episcopal Church 



UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS 355 

would sooner or later prefer to be in an independent 
Church controlled by their own race. 

If they did withdraw, it is probable that the colored 
people in the Methodist Episcopal Church would prefer 
not to fuse at first with other colored Episcopal Meth- 
odists, but to organize themselves into an independent 
colored Church, elect their own bishops and other gen- 
eral officers, and later consider the question of combin- 
ing with other colored bodies. At least that has been 
the expressed opinion of some of their leaders, who say 
that otherwise they would be at a disadvantage in deal- 
ing with independent organizations that have been com- 
pacted by years of experience and self-control. 

If the colored Methodist Episcopalians withdrew and 
became an independent body, it is probable that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church would make a satisfactory 
adjustment as to property, and would continue to ap- 
propriate missionary money for the aid of the colored 
people, as it now gives missionary money to the inde- 
pendent Church of Japan, and that it would continue to 
appropriate to the educational work among the people of 
color. Doubtless such matters might be adjusted to mu- 
tual satisfaction if the independence was agreed upon. 

If all the colored Episcopal Methodists, including 
those in the Methodist Episcopal Church, were to com- 
bine they would make a great Church of about two 
millions or more communicants, not counting adherents 
and Sunday-school scholars. 

This would make an impressive and influential body 
and when two millions or two millions and a half ut- 
tered their voice for themselves, or for any righteous 
cause it would be heard and heeded, as would not be 
the case with the cry of small or fragmentary bodies. 



356 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Many colored people may conclude that in view of 
race questions, which observing persons believe are im- 
pending, it will be well to secure the solidarity and 
power given by unified Colored Episcopal Methodism 
in an organization which would be as large as, or pos- 
sibly larger than, the present Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. 

These are not an advocate's theories but the historian's 
perception of facts and possibilities. From these facts 
inferences may be drawn that point to possibilities and 
even probabilities, but it would take prophetic vision 
to perceive the final outcome. 

The large majority of colored Methodists have 
yielded to the natural impulse to be independent, and 
it is intimated that some of the independents pride 
themselves on their independence so that they twit the 
colored people in the Methodist Episcopal Church for 
being under white domination, all of which raises ques- 
tions and causes reflection. 

It is expected that what is right and best will be 
carefully considered by the colored people and their 
best friends of the white race. 



XXXIII 
GERMAN- AMERICAN METHODISM 

THE study of American Methodism would not 
be complete without a mention of certain 
Methodistic Churches which at first appealed 
particularly to people who spoke the German tongue. 

Many Germans for religious liberty as well as polit- 
ical freedom came to the English Colonies long before 
the war for Independence and settled chiefly in eastern 
and central Pennsylvania, and their descendants in that 
state are to this day spoken of as Pennsylvania Ger- 
mans, and there they have to a great extent preserved 
their ancient mother tongue, though now modified con- 
siderably by contact with the English language, yet 
still a dialect of the German. 

Yery many of the original immigrants were from 
the Rhenish Palatinate and spoke the German of that 
region, and the language of the Pennsylvania Germans 
can be understood at the present time by the people of 
Southern Germany in the Upper Rhine country. 

From Pennsylvania as a center these German people 
spread in various directions, but the population was 
more dense in certain sections of Pennsylvania than 
elsewhere. 

To provide for the religious needs of these Germanic 
communities ministers were from time to time sent 
from Germany. 

Among those who were sent for to perform this work 

357 



358 AMERICAN METHODISM 

was a young German Reformed minister named Philip 
William Otterbein who was born in 1726, in Dillen- 
berg, in the Duchy of Nassau, Germany. His father 
was a minister of the German Reformed Church and 
also the rector of the Latin school at Dillenberg. 

As might be expected in view of such environments 
and in view of his calling, Philip "William Otterbein 
was very thoroughly educated. His certificate of ordi- 
nation speaks of him as " the reverend and very learned 
young man Philip William Otterbein," and the testi- 
monial drawn up when he was recommended for the 
work in America refers to him as " the truly reverend 
and very learned Mr. Philip William Otter bein." 

In 1752, when a young man of twenty-six, he emi- 
grated from Germany and, coming to America, had his 
first pastoral charge in this country in the city of 
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In Germany Mr. Otterbein 
had come under pietistic influences, and, while in Lan- 
caster, he was impressed with the necessity of securing 
a personal spiritual experience much profounder and 
more pervading than was commonly possessed or taught 
in his denomination. He, therefore, earnestly sought 
a more thorough work of divine grace and entered into 
a higher religious life and this he regarded as his first 
real change of heart. 

That he had experienced some change was seen in 
the changed style of his preaching, for though it had 
been quite direct, his ministry now assumed a pro- 
foundly spiritual character and he preached with an 
unction such as neither he nor his people had before 
realized, and, in addition, he began to hold evangelistic 
services, and instituted special prayer and experience 
meetings and even held religious services in the open air. 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 359 

After six years in the Lancaster pastorate, he trans- 
ferred his labors to Tulpehocken, Pennsylvania, where 
he continued his highly spiritual ministry. Here he 
exhorted the people to flee from the wrath to come, 
using methods and language suggestive of those em- 
ployed by John Wesley whose work had been spread- 
ing throughout Great Britain. How much of Wesley's 
influence had extended to the American colonies at that 
time is not known though it is possible that individuals 
who had heard him or his co-workers had come to 
America, but, as far as now known, there was not a 
Wesleyan society or a single pronounced follower of 
Wesley in all America. 

Mr. Otterbein's " new measures," however, brought 
upon him severe criticism. 

From 1760 to 1765 Otterbein was pastor in Frederick 
City, Maryland, and from 1765 to 1770 he was pastor at 
York, Pennsylvania. Then he visited Germany, and 
on his return he served as pastor in York from 1771 
to 1774. 

All this time Mr. Otterbein had been pursuing his 
peculiar course and diffusing his ideas of the spiritual 
life. It has been said that he was led into the light of 
a new life by the Reverend Martin Boehm, a zealous 
Mennonite preacher of Pennsylvania. However that 
may have been the two ministers became closely 
related. It is told that Mr. Otterbein attended a re- 
ligious meeting held in a barn in Lancaster County, 
Pennsylvania, where Mr. Boehm delivered a discourse, 
and at the close of the sermon before Mr. Boehm had 
taken his seat, Mr. Otterbein arose and embraced him, 
exclaiming : " We be brethren ! " and from that time 
they were brethren united in Christ. 



360 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Afc first they worked separately travelling exten- 
vely, preaching here and there, organizing societies, 
and gathering co-workers, but later they became co- 
laborers and acted conjointly. As the societies became 
more numerous a system of regular ministerial supply 
was devised to maintain the stated services, and the 
preachers interested in the developing movement met 
and conferred together. 

In the meantime Mr. Otterbein was called to a pas- 
torate in the city of Baltimore. There had been a split 
in the German Reformed Church in that city and a 
new Church had been formed in 1770, and the new 
organization wanted Mr. Otterbein to be its pastor. 
Mr. Francis Asbury, the leader of the Wesleyan move- 
ment in America, was at that time in Baltimore, and on 
this matter was in consultation with the Reverend Mr. 
Schwope of the Reformed Church. Asbury wanted 
Otterbein to come to Baltimore, and sustained the re- 
quest of the congregation by writing a personal letter 
to Mr. Otterbein urging him to accept the invitation. 

Otterbein in 1774 came to the new Church and it 
became a new kind of a Church, which, instead of call- 
ing itself a German Reformed Church, called itself 
" The Evangelical Reformed Church." 

It was in May, 1774, the very year that Otterbein 
came to Baltimore, that German-speaking ministers 
with evangelical spirits and cooperating in evangelistic 
work began to hold meetings and called themselves 
"The United Ministers." Somewhere between 1775 
and 1780 the Mennonites excluded from their fellow- 
ship their preacher, the Reverend Martin Boehm, be- 
cause they did not approve of his theological teachings, 
and, for similar reasons, excluded his followers. 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 361 

This helped towards a new organization among the 
Germans. 

Before that, however, there occurred another ecclesi- 
astical development. The Wesleyan societies had 
spread throughout the colonies and had become an 
important factor in the new Republic. Their organiza- 
tion, however, was not complete. It was still directly 
related to Wesley in England and needed a readapta- 
tion to new conditions in America. So, after the inde- 
pendence of the United States of America, Wesley 
determined upon the reorganization of the Wesleyan 
body in this country. 

The plan for the reorganization was brought by the 
Reverend Thomas Coke, D. C. L., of Oxford University, 
England, who, a regularly ordained presbyter of the 
Church of England, but a minister under Mr. Wesley, 
and a member of his Conference, had been set apart by 
Wesley for the headship of the new American organi- 
zation, to act in conjunction with Francis Asbury. 

Philadelphia, the chief city in the colonies and later 
in the new nation, had been the early Methodistic center, 
but the movements of the British forces and the occu- 
pation of Philadelphia by a British army had forced 
the work and the workers farther southward and Balti- 
more became a convenient point for general gatherings. 
To Baltimore, therefore, the American Wesleyan 
preachers came to consider Wesley's plan and his pro- 
posals for his people in the new land, and the American 
Conference met in the Lovely Lane Chapel in that city, 
on Christmas eve, 1784, and, continuing through the 
Christmas season, it has been called the "Christmas 
Conference." 

Wesley's communication was read, and, as Freeborn 



362 AMEKICAN METHODISM 

Garrettson, who was present, said : " We acceded to 
the method proposed by Mr. Wesley, 5 ' and, as Asbury 
recorded, " It was agreed to form ourselves into an 
Episcopal Church, and to have superintendents, elders, 
and deacons," and for distinction they called it " The 
Methodist Episcopal Church. " Asbury also notes that, 
" When the Conference was seated, Doctor Coke and 
myself were unanimously elected to the superintendency 
of the Church." 

The Wesleyan idea of the episcopate was that the 
episcopacy was a superintendency and that a bishop 
was an ecclesiastical superintendent, and, hence, bishop 
and superintendent were often used interchangeably, 
but bishop became the title of the officer while superin- 
tendency characterized the nature of the service he 
rendered. 

Doctor Coke, having been set apart in England, 
needed, at this time, no consecration, but Francis 
Asbury, who had been the acting and real head of 
Wesleyanism in America, having been elected superin- 
tendent or bishop, to act conjointly with Bishop Coke, 
needed the formal service inducting him into his high 
office. 

Doctor Coke with others were sufficient for this serv- 
ice but Asbury requested his friend the Eeverend Philip 
William Otterbein to participate in the consecration 
service. So Otterbein joined with Bishop Coke and 
the new elders, Kichard Whatcoat and Thomas Yasey, 
just arrived from England, in the formal service setting 
apart Francis Asbury for his high office in the new 
American Church, and previously assisted in his ordi- 
nation as elder. 

Bishop Coke and the others represented the British 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 363 

line of clerical succession, while Otterbein represented 
that of the Reformed Church of Continental Europe, 
so that, if there was any grace coming from a succes- 
sion, Asbury received a double stream from the two 
sources, the Anglican and the Reformed Churches. 

The incidents mentioned show that the Reverend Mr. 
Otterbein was closely related to Bishop Asbury and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. He had a strong sym- 
pathy with its polity, its doctrines, and its practical 
methods of work, which he incorporated in his own re- 
ligious operations. So it happened that, working on 
similar lines, Asbury devoted himself to Americans 
generally, while Otterbein, being a German, devoted 
himself particularly to the German-speaking people who 
were found here and there throughout the land. 

Pursuing methods of operation similar to those em- 
ployed by Asbury and other ministers of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, the work of Otterbein and Boehm 
resulted, in what was, in many respects, a duplicate of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church but for the Germans. 

One rule of Otterbein's Church in Baltimore, before 
the close of the eighteenth century, read : " No preacher 
can stay among us who will not to the best of his ability 
care for the various Churches in Pennsylvania, Maryland 
and Yirginia, which Churches, under the superintend- 
ence of William Otterbein, stand in fraternal unity 
with us." 

The Reverend Daniel Berger, D. D., in his history, 1 
says that the Churches referred to " were such societies 
as were formed of men and women converted under the 
preaching of Mr. Otterbein at various points visited by 

1,1 History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ," Dayton, 
Ohio, 1897, p. 101. 



364 AMERICAN METHODISM 

him from time to time, and under the preaching of Mr. 
Boehm," and others. 

The first formal Conference of the preachers asso- 
ciated with Otterbein and Boehm was held in 1789, in 
Otterbein's parsonage in Baltimore, when seven min- 
isters were reported present, and the same number 
absent, making fourteen who were understood to be 
affiliated or acting together. Otterbein and Boehm 
were among those present. The former was now about 
sixty-three years of age and the latter was one year 
older. This meeting adopted an instrument made up 
of the " Disciplinary Rules " and " The Doctrine of the 
United Brethren in Christ." A second formal Con- 
ference was held in 1791, about eight miles from York, 
Pennsylvania, when Otterbein and Boehm and seven 
others were present and thirteen were absent. 

After this no Conference was held until 1800. This 
Conference, convened by Otterbein in conjunction with 
Boehm, and held on the 25th and 26th of September, 
1800, at the house of a Peter Kemp, a little more than 
two miles west of Frederick City, Maryland, was historic. 

Fourteen preachers were present and eighteen were 
absent, and among those in attendance were Otterbein, 
Martin Boehm, and the latter's son, Henry Boehm. 

Here it would seem the work of the scattered preach- 
ers and societies was compacted as a distinct body. 
The title of the organization was definitely decided. 
In the prefatory remark to the Minutes appears the 
title, " The United Brotherhood in Christ Jesus," and 
a briefer form, used previously, " the United," an ab- 
breviated appellation, meaning " The Unified." The 
people had been called "United Brethren," but now, 
to avoid confusion with the Moravian " United Breth- 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 365 

ren," or " Unitas Fratrum" the Conference formally 
adopted the title "United Brethren in Christ," or " The 
Church of the United Brethren in Christ." l 

This Conference of 1800 also elected the Reverend 
Philip William Otterbein and the Reverend Martin 
Boehm superintendents or bishops. Doctor Har- 
baugh, the Reformed Church historian, disputes this 
and says that no bishop was elected by the United 
Brethren Church until 1813, the year when Otter- 
bein died. Doctor Harbaugh bases his denial also 
on the assertion that Mr. Otterbein never left the Ger- 
man Reformed Church, but, even if that were true, it 
might be held that he could have had a sort of double 
relationship. Indeed it is declared that though he did 
not formally withdraw from the German Reformed 
Church, his active relationship for years was very 
slight. So John Wesley never formally withdrew 
from the Church of England, yet he was the head of 
an independent ecclesiasticism over which the Church 
of England never had any control and did not control 
or direct him in its management. It will also be re- 
membered that Otterbein's Church in Baltimore had 
named itself " The Evangelical Reformed Church." 

The United Brethren historians maintain that both 
Otterbein and Boehm were elected superintendents or 
bishops in 1800 and the Reverend Henry Boehm, who 
was present, states that they were so elected. Thus he 
says : " They elected bishops for the first time. 
William Otterbein and Martin Boehm (my father) 
were unanimously chosen." 2 

1 Daniel Berger, D. D., " History of the Church of the United Breth- 
ren in Christ," 1897, pp. 163-165. 
8 "Henry Boehm 's Reminiscences," pp. 55, 56. 



366 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Attention is also called to a record in the Conference 
of 1802, only two years later, " That in case one of our 
superintendents — W. Otterbein and Martin Boehm — 
should die, another one in his place shall always be 
appointed." 

The Church of the United Brethren in Christ had a 
polity that was episcopal, while in doctrine it was Ar- 
miniaft. It adopted most of the prudential arrange- 
ments of Methodism and had in practical operation the 
same methods in polity. It had an appointive power 
and an itinerant ministerial system. It had Annual 
Conferences and a Quadrennial General Conference, 
and in the organization of the local church it was quite 
similar to the local charges in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. The great difference was that it devoted it- 
self to work in German and among Germans while the 
other Church used the English language and operated 
among English-speaking people, and because of this 
these United Brethren were frequently called German 
Methodists. 

In the early days, as might be inferred from the 
personal friendship between Asbury and Otterbein, and 
also with Martin Boehm, the relationship between the 
United Brethren in Christ and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was very close, and it was possible for ministers 
and members of one Church to pass into the other with 
scarcely any perceptible change in practice or difference 
in doctrine. 

The relations were most cordial and steps were taken 
to strengthen the bonds of amity so that they might 
use each other's church buildings, and there was free 
admission of members of the one into the class-meet- 
ings, the prayer-meetings, and the love-feasts of the other. 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 367 

Martin Boehin, co-founder with Otterbein of the 
United Brethren, fraternized with preachers and people 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church so that he could 
have passed as one of them, and, when he was seventy- 
six or seventy-seven years of age, he had his name 
placed upon a Methodist Episcopal class-book at 
Boehm's Chapel near which he resided. The chapel 
stood on ground which once was part of his own 
homestead and which later had belonged to his son 
Jacob, who was a member of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

In regard to this Bishop Boehm said : " Age having 
overtaken me, with some of its infirmities, I could not 
travel as I had formerly done. In 1802 I enrolled my 
name on a Methodist class-book, and I have found great 
comfort in meeting with my brethren." 

This, it is held, did not mean that he had left the 
United Brethren, for it is shown that he presided in 
the United Brethren Conference in 1805 when he was 
elected superintendent or bishop a second time, and he 
was present at the Conference of 1809. 

This was his last Conference for he then was eighty- 
three years of age. About three years later, on the 
23d of March, 1812, Martin Boehm died, aged eighty- 
six years, three months, and eleven days, after a min- 
istry of fifty-three years, and his honored remains were 
laid in the ground on which he had lived beside 
Boehm's Chapel, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 
which venerable edifice still stands a monument to 
Boehm and an evidence of the close relationship be- 
tween the United Brethren and the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church in those days. 

Bishop Boehm's son, Henry Boehm, who had been a 



368 AMERICAN METHODISM 

United Brethren preacher, joined the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church and entered its ministry, as Doctor Berger 
says : " On account of the greater thoroughness of its 
organization, especially as to its more elaborate dis- 
cipline and the efficiency of its itinerant system." He 
was the long time travelling companion of Bishop 
Asbury. He lived to a great old age, dying on the 
29th of December, 1875, aged one hundred years, six 
months, and twenty-one days, having been a member of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church for seventy-seven years. 

Bishop Otterbein presided over his Conference for 
the last time in May, 1805. On the 2d of October, 
1813, he ordained a minister "with the assistance of 
William Ryland," an elder of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. The next month, on the 17th of November, 
1813, Bishop Philip William Otterbein died, aged 
eighty-seven years, five months, and fourteen days, 
after sixty-five years in the ministry. At his funeral 
service three ministers officiated, one from the Lutheran 
Church, another from the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
and the third was the Reverend William Ryland of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Bishop Asbury, who had preached a sermon on the 
death of Bishop Martin Boehm, now preached a special 
sermon on the decease of Bishop Otterbein. In his dis- 
course on Martin Boehm, Asbury said : " William 
Otterbein was regularly ordained to the ministry in the 
German Presbyterian Church. He is one of the best 
scholars and greatest divines in America. Why, then, 
is he not where he began ? He was irregular. Alas 
for us ! the zealous are necessarily so to those whose 
cry has been, * Put me into the priest's office, that I 
may eat a morsel of bread.' . . . Such was not 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 369 

Boehm ; such is not Otterbein ; and now his sun is set- 
ting in brightness. Behold the saint of God leaning 
upon his staff, waiting for the chariots of Israel ! " 

After preaching his sermon on Otterbein, which was 
delivered in the church of the deceased minister, 
Asbury wrote in his journal : 

. "By request I discoursed on the character of the 
angel of the Church of Philadelphia, in allusion to 
P. W. Otterbein, the holy, the great Otterbein, whose 
funeral discourse it was intended to be. Solemnity 
marked the silent meeting in the German Church, 
where were assembled the members of our Conference 
and many of the clergy of the city. Forty years have 
I known the retiring modesty of this man of God, tow- 
ering majestic above his fellows in learning, wisdom, 
and grace, yet seeking to be known only of God and 
the people of God." 

The Church of the United Brethren in Christ spread, 
and increased in numbers and influence, for nearly three 
generations without a break, but at last serious differ- 
ences developed, and in it was repeated an experience 
that has come to many other ecclesiastical bodies. 

The years 1885 and 1889 mark an era in the history 
of this Church. In the General Conference of 1885 
steps were taken to revise the Confession of Faith and 
to prepare an amended Constitution and a commission 
for this purpose was created. The revisions having 
been made, the documents were submitted to the people 
of the Church. Various modifications and additions 
were involved which called forth considerable opposi- 
tion and, among other things, there was dissent from 
the changes in the rule in regard to secret societies 
which was modified so as to make it less stringent. 



370 AMERICAN METHODISM 

When the General Conference of 1889 met in the 
city of York, Pennsylvania, and the votes were counted 
it was found that the revisions had received two-thirds 
of all the votes cast. Then the bishops, on the 13th of 
May, formally said to the General Conference and the 
Church that: "The result being the required two- 
thirds, we do hereby publish and proclaim the docu- 
ment thus voted upon to be the Confession of Faith 
and Constitution of the Church of the United Brethren 
in Christ, and we hereby pass from under the old and 
legislate under the amended Constitution." 

This proclamation having been made, Bishop Milton 
Wright, with fourteen others of the twenty who in the 
General Conference had voted against approval, arose 
and left the hall and went to another place in the city 
of York, and proceeded to organize themselves, assert- 
ing that they were the true General Conference be- 
cause of certain irregularities and illegalities in connec- 
tion with the actions on the revision. Having organ- 
ized they elected bishops and other officers and trans- 
acted such business as they deemed necessary. 

As they adhered to the documents as they were be- 
fore the proposed revision this body became known as 
" The Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Old 
Constitution)." 

This division was followed by a period of litigation 
through which the Church of the Old Constitution en- 
deavored to establish its claim in the courts that it was 
the real Church of the United Brethren in Christ. It 
was claimed for and by it that the revision had not re- 
ceived the requisite vote because so many in the Church 
had not voted at all. It sought possession of the United 
Brethren Publishing House claiming that the section 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 371 

that had accepted the revised Confession of Faith and 
the new Constitution had ceased to be the true Church of 
the United Brethren in Christ and had become another 
and a different Church and that doctrinally, for ex- 
ample, it had ceased to be Arminian and had become 
Calvinistic, and that the minority General Conference 
was the rightful representative of the real Church. 
The courts, however, left the majority in possession. 
Claims were made to other property also but the courts 
did not disturb the holders thereof. 

At the beginning the Church of the Old Constitution 
had a membership of between fifteen and twenty 
thousand. While there are variations, the two Churches 
are regarded as essentially the same and both bodies 
are very similar to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Some time ago there was talk of combining the Con- 
gregationalists, the Methodist Protestants, and the 
United Brethren in Christ but the negotiations failed. 
More recently there was a movement to unite the 
Methodist Protestants and the United Brethren and 
both General Conferences declared in its favor but An- 
nual Conferences in both bodies were opposed and it was 
believed that a two-thirds vote of the people could not 
be secured for the combination. The movement is now 
regarded as having lost its force. Suggestions have 
been made looking towards a union of the United 
Brethren and the Methodist Episcopal Churches but as 
yet nothing has resulted. 

Another Methodistic and Episcopal body which at 
first appealed especially to Germans and persons of 
German descent in America came quite directly from 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

When it arose the Methodist Episcopal Church had 



372 AMERICAN METHODISM 

no special department of German work, and the new- 
denomination began because there had developed a feel- 
ing that the German people should be cared for specially 
by themselves and in their own tongue. 

This other Evangelistic and Methodistic movement 
among the Germanic people in the United States had 
its beginning in Eastern Pennsylvania where there 
were large German populations. 

In the eighteenth century a Lutheran family named 
Albrecht emigrated from Germany and settled in this 
part of Pennsylvania. To these parents a son was born 
on the first day of May, in the year 1759, near Pottstown, 
Montgomery County, in that state, and this son was 
called Jacob — Jacob Albrecht — but the name soon was 
Americanized, and he became known as Jacob Albright. 

This Jacob Albright removed to Lancaster County, 
Pennsylvania, where he prospered as a manufacturer of 
tiles and brick. While there, the death of several of 
his children in rapid succession in 1790 profoundly im- 
pressed him, and it is related that a sermon in connec- 
tion with the funeral services led him to repentance, 
and, soon after, he was spiritually changed. One ac- 
count states that he was converted under the preach- 
ing of an independent minister named Reagel. 

After his penitence and conversion, though he had 
been trained a Lutheran, Mr. Jacob Albright joined the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, in which, on account of 
his devotion and his gifts in address, he was made a 
licensed exhorter, and so had authority to hold devo- 
tional meetings and to deliver religious discourses. 

As already stated the Methodist Episcopal Church 
at that time conducted no distinctive work among the 
German population, but Mr. Albright, who spoke Ger- 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 373 

man, and, indeed, " had little knowledge of the Eng- 
lish language," 1 having become deeply interested in the 
religious condition of his fellow Germans, and recogniz- 
ing the general decline of religious life and the cor- 
ruption of doctrines and religious practices that pre- 
vailed in the German Churches in his section of the 
country, undertook to work a reform. 

Determined to devote himself to the German-speak- 
ing people, of whom there were many in the eastern 
and central parts of the State of Pennsylvania, he be- 
gan holding German services and preaching in 1796. 
He was under the influence of what he deemed a 
divine call, and so to more efficiently prosecute what he 
believed was his special mission of working a religious 
reform among the Pennsylvania Germans, he gave up 
his business and devoted himself to evangelistic efforts. 

He travelled throughout a considerable part of the 
country preaching the Gospel wherever he had oppor- 
tunity, in churches, schoolhouses, private homes, on 
public roads, and wherever he could reach the people. 
At first he had no thought of founding a denomina- 
tion, but, being urged to organize his converts, he 
formed classes and gathered congregations, and by 1800 
a number of societies existed and, as they multiplied, 
regular helpers were raised up, a district was formed, 
and Mr. Albright became its head, and so 1800 has 
been regarded as the epochal year of the organization. 

The first general gathering or council took place in 
November, 1803. It was composed of Mr. Albright, 
his two assistants and fourteen of the leading men. 
This Conference unanimously recognized Albright as 
a minister of the Gospel — "a genuine evangelical 

1 Doctor Berger, " History of United Brethren," p. 193. 



374 AMERICAN METHODISM 

preacher" — and as such solemnly ordained him by 
the laying on of hands as in the Acts of the Apostles 
xiii. 1-3. 

In 1807 the first regular Conference was held in 
Kleinfeltersville, Pennsylvania. It was composed of 
twenty -eight ministers and officers of the Association, 
and this body elected the Reverend Jacob Albright a 
general superintendent or bishop, and authorized him 
to compile a Scriptural creed and to draw up a plan of 
organization or church discipline. Thus in Eastern 
Pennsylvania there developed a distinct denomination 
among the German-speaking population. 

Bishop Albright saw the culmination of his efforts 
when the societies he had formed were combined into a 
new Church, but he did not remain long to enjoy the 
fruits of his labors, for about six months after he was 
made bishop he passed from labor to reward. He died 
May 18, 1808, at Mtihlbach, Lebanon County, Pennsyl- 
vania. 

He was a plain man with a plain education, but he 
was characterized by deep piety, unfailing devotion to 
his work, and intense earnestness, and he was highly 
esteemed by Bishop Asbury. 

On account of the name of the founder of this new 
denomination its people were called Albright Method- 
ists, the Albrights, or Albright's People — Die AlbrecMs 
Leute. A certificate of ordination issued by Bishop 
Albright in 1807 shows that his followers at that time 
were known as " New Methodists." Dr. R. Yeakel, in 
his history, referring to the Conference of 1807, says : 
" This Conference gave the Church it represented no 
distinct name. . . . But the Conference adopted a 
Conference name by calling itself ' The Newly-Formed 



GERMAN-AMEKICAN METHODISM 375 

Methodist Conference. ' Albright had been a Method- 
ist, and was such still in his heart, faith, and practice. 
If he had been allowed to fulfill his mission to the Ger- 
mans within the Methodist Church, he would have re- 
mained in that Church." ' 

Though the founder had been removed, men had 
been raised up to carry on the work. Prominent 
among them were George Miller, an excellent writer ; 
John Walter, an eloquent preacher; and John Dreis- 
bach, a leader and organizer, and these men built on 
the foundations Albright had laid. 

In 1809 a second Conference was held, at which 
the Book of Discipline, begun by Bishop Albright 
and completed by George Miller, was adopted, and 
the name agreed upon was "The So-called Albright 
People." 

In 1816 the first General Conference was held in 
Union County, Pennsylvania. This was composed of 
all the elders in the ministry of the Church. It adopted 
as the name of the organization " The Evangelical As- 
sociation," which is its proper appellation at the present 
time. 

The Evangelical Association has a polity quite like 
that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and its first 
Discipline was mainly a translation into German of the 
Book of Discipline of that Church. Though it does not 
use the title, it is episcopal and has bishops. It is Ar- 
minian in doctrine, connectional in organization, and 
episcopal in government, with a General Conference 
which meets once in four years, while in worship and 
usages it is Methodistic, and generally resembles the 

1 Dr. R. Yeakel, " History of the Evangelical Association," pp. 84, 
66. 



376 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Methodist Episcopal Church to which Albright had be- 
longed. 

This body also has shared in the disruptive experiences 
of other ecclesiastical organizations, and from the Evan- 
gelical Association there went out ministers and mem- 
bers who formed another independent Church. 

This was preceded by controversies of several years' 
duration touching differences of opinion largely as to 
matters of administration and the power of the General 
Conference. "In 1887 the General Conference as- 
sumed original jurisdiction in the k case of an accused 
brother, and proceeded to try him in a manner which 
called forth the most earnest protestations from many 
of its members," it was alleged, and the Church was 
resolved into two parties termed the " Majority " and 
the " Minority." Certain bishops were involved in the 
controversies and in actions which grew out of them. 
It was asserted that " Ministers were suspended without 
charges or trial," and that " Proceedings and verdicts 
of properly constituted tribunals were, without a shadow 
of warrant under the law, declared void." Differences 
in the interpretation of the Discipline resulted in call- 
ing two General Conferences in 1891, the " Majority " 
meeting in Indianapolis, and the " Minority " in Phila- 
delphia. The " Minority " proposed an. arbitration by 
" disinterested Christian brethren of other denomina- 
tions " but this was not accepted. Litigation was re- 
sorted to and the courts ruled against the " Minority." 
Then in October, 1894, members of the East Pennsylva- 
nia Conference met in convention and reorganized as the 
East Pennsylvania Conference of the United Evangel- 
ical Church, and issued a call for a General Conference 
to meet in JSTaperville, Illinois, on the 29th of Novem- 



GERMAN-AMERICAN METHODISM 377 

ber, of the same year, and there, on the thirtieth day of 
November, 1894, organized the United Evangelical 
Church, with fifty-five thousand members. 

Some modifications have been made in the old econ- 
omy but the similarities between the two bodies still 
are very marked, and there has been a recent move- 
ment to reunite the two and make them one Church. 

All these bodies which had a German origin now use 
English as well as German in their services, while, on 
the other hand, the Methodist Episcopal Church has an 
exceedingly extensive German work in the United 
States of America, with whole Conferences for German 
preachers and people. 

Some of these modifications are likely to strengthen 
the fraternizing spirit and to result in closer relations 
between the several bodies. 



XXXIY 

IS UNION OF THE DENOMINATIONS DE- 
SIEABLE? 

IS the organic unity of the separate and different 
denominations desirable or necessary ? That is a 
fundamental question. If it is not necessary or 
desirable then it is a matter of little or no moment, but 
if it is a duty, or even if it is desirable, then it is a ques- 
tion demanding serious consideration. 

Being a current question it demands attention, and, 
to-day, it is receiving much attention and, in some in- 
stances, possibly more attention than it deserves. 

Probably the most who discuss the matter consider 
merely the question of denominational union in the ab- 
stract, on the general assertion that there are too many 
denominations, rather than the concrete question as to 
union between two or more denominations in particular. 
But the question is not to be determined in the abstract 
but in the concrete as between two or more bodies. 

If one asks : Is general Church unity necessary, and 
is it a divine duty to bring all denominations together 
as one organism and under a single ecclesiastical gov- 
ernment ? the student of Church history will probably 
answer in the negative. 

But one may say did not Jesus pray : " That they all 
may be one " and that the disciples " may be perfected 
in one " ? He certainly did, but did He mean the or- 
ganic unity of different denominations, and is the eccle- 

378 



IS UNION DESIRABLE? 379 

siastical combination of all under one government the 
only possible oneness and the only possible oneness 
Jesus meant ? Is there not the " unity of the Spirit " 
and may not persons having the " unity of the Spirit " 
be one, though they are under different varieties of 
Church government with variations in ecclesiastical 
usage ? The " unity of the Spirit " is one thing and 
ecclesiastical unity is another. 

So when one asks : Is Church unity necessary ? the 
answer must be that Denominational unity is not al- 
ways absolutely necessary. To the other question, Is 
organic unity desirable ? the answer must be that the 
organic unity of denominations may, or may not, be 
desirable, and that is to be determined, not by abstract 
theorizings but by actual circumstances. 

Adherents of Protestantism that broke away from 
the Church of Eome certainly would not hold that there 
should be organic unity under all circumstances, and no 
genuine Protestant would want to unite Protestantism 
with the Papal organization, and, logically, no Protes- 
tant would hold that all existing Churches should be 
united into a single body and that all Christians must 
be under one ecclesiastical government. 

Speaking generally, under present conditions, the ab- 
solute unity of all Churches is not required, and yet 
there may be denominations that could consolidate and 
would do well to unite. 

Union, however, should not be simply for union, or 
merely for bigness, but for something beyond and bet- 
ter than mere combination. Those who contemplate 
a consolidation with another Church should ask : Will 
things be better ? Will we combined do better work ? 

If things will be worse, then it would be a crime to 



380 AMERICAN METHODISM 

combine. If they will be no better, then there is no 
advantage in the consolidation and the proposed union 
is not necessary. If things will not be better, or not 
much better, then what is the use of the trouble, the 
effort, and the risk involved in the suggested change ? 
If there is little or nothing to be gained by a combina- 
tion there is, probably, much to be lost and Churches 
should consider these things. 

If two denominations are exactly alike and belong to 
the same ecclesiastical family it would seem that a 
question as to union between them should be answered 
in the affirmative, but the fundamental fact of exact 
sameness should first be ascertained. 

If they are exactly alike how did they ever separate, 
and why have they remained separate so many years ? 
The fact that they separated and have continued apart 
so long starts a suspicion that they cannot be exactly 
the same, or quite as much alike as some would like to 
think. 

Nevertheless these differences might disappear and, 
under some circumstances, a harmonious union might 
result. 

Even the strongest friend of union must scrutinize 
and challenge propositions for union, until he is 
thoroughly satisfied that it is perfectly safe, for mat- 
ters easily overlooked might forbid a union or might 
make it a mere formality on paper and not a real 
unification in spirit. 

Combinations under some conditions would be ex- 
ceedingly unfortunate, and either side has a right to 
ask, What will be the effect of bringing in people of 
another and adverse kind to rule in whole or part ? 

The removal of friction between two kindred de- 



IS UNION DESIRABLE? 381 

nominations is to be desired, but would the spirit that 
feeds friction be removed by uniting the antagonists ? 
If there is friction and one Church is suspicious or 
antagonistic towards a sister Church, there would seem 
to be little probability of union, and, if the same feel- 
ings are carried into a combination between them, there 
might be no real unity of spirit though there was an 
external union. Then the friction would be within 
rather than without. But friction may be removed 
without organic unity and it should be removed before 
organic union is attempted. 

During the course of a generation or two of separa- 
tion, denominations which are historically or theoretic- 
ally similar may diverge and suffer many decided dif- 
ferences so that they are not precisely the same as they 
were at the beginning. They have had a different his- 
tory and have stood for different things. Changes in 
both have occurred in polity and in other things so that 
they are not ecclesiastically the same, and in the same 
way practical methods are no longer exactly the same, 
and it is just possible that there have grown up differ- 
ences of a theological nature. 

All these things of history and of time-develop- 
ment have not been forgotten, and an attachment to 
variations has grown. If they persist, even in senti- 
ment, they would not strongly cement a union, and 
they would not make for union of sentiment or for 
unity of spirit. If antagonistic sentiments are brought 
in they will not tend to real harmony. Some of these 
things may not be vital, but, essential or non-essential, 
they should be essentially eliminated before the pro- 
posed union is consummated ; for the mere form of vot- 
ing union is not enough to make heart unity. 



382 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Doubtless inore is expected of organic unity than the 
theorists are likely to realize. They think it will for- 
ever remove many evils and there will be a practically 
perfect ecclesiasticism. But they forget that when in 
the middle ages Christendom was supposed to be under 
a single government, corruption was rampant and 
despotism ran wild. 

Further a unified ecclesiastical government may not 
mean a complete unity. Even to-day the Roman 
Church has its divisions within itself, and Mohammed- 
anism has its sects. 

So some strong assertions frequently made in favor of 
Church union are not well-founded. Thus it is said 
that the organic union of two denominations would 
prevent the duplication of Churches and various institu- 
tions and enterprises, but this is not a certain preven- 
tion of duplication, for where there is only one denom- 
ination there are duplications that some call unneces- 
sary, and there are rival and antagonistic Churches in 
the same denomination. Unity does not prevent this 
and the lack of unity is not the cause. These things 
usually grow out of local ambitions, differences in 
judgment, and other conditions which might not be af- 
fected or prevented by ecclesiastical oneness. 

Neither is organic unity a certain preventive of local 
jealousies and antagonisms, for they are found where 
there is only a single denomination and no competing 
denominations. 

It is said that unity will be more economical because 
there will be fewer churches and fewer ministers will 
be needed. Then what will become of the surplus min- 
isters ? Will they be discharged and where will they 
go to get work and support ? If there are too many 



IS UNION DESIRABLE? 383 

preachers why are the Churches continually crying out 
for more ? Again, how many church buildings could 
be abandoned ? Perhaps a few here and there would 
be given up, but how many could be abandoned when 
even now there are not enough church edifices to accom- 
modate the population ? If there are not too many 
churches even a combined body would need them all. 

If churches of one or other sister denomination are 
not needed in the same locality a little fraternal com- 
mon sense can adjust that. Whether they are needed 
is a matter of opinion and the people themselves can 
find out whether they are wanted and whether they 
can carry them. 

A few facts like these very plainly show that organic 
unity may not bring all that some advocates seem to 
anticipate. 

The law of supply and demand naturally regulates in 
the business world, and it is so with Churches, and if 
left alone a Church will prove its right to exist or its 
duty to desist. It depends upon the people and their 
ecclesiastical officers whether there is one church or 
two or more competing churches. The great factor is 
intelligence joined with love for the interests of Christ's 
kingdom, and, if there is not good judgment and com- 
mon sense in two or more denominations, there might 
not be with the same people consolidated into a single 
denomination. 

The greatest requisite is the unity of the Christly 
Spirit, and the unity of the Spirit in the practical con- 
duct of the people and of the organized denominations. 
Centralization within one ecclesiastical government 
does not give that, but it may exist either in a union of 
Churches or amid diverse denominations, so that there 



384 AMERICAN METHODISM 

can be mutual comity, common sense, and Christly con- 
sideration among the denominations without the loss of 
individual freedom or denominational existence in a 
fusion or organic union. 

Nevertheless there is a power in the concentration of 
small bodies into one large body, but the extremist is 
apt to overlook the fact that denominational divisions 
have a decided value, and the denomination is not to be 
discounted because it is regarded as a division. 

Division in other departments is regarded as an ad- 
vantage and so efficiency experts favor specialization 
and division of labor, and the same principle may apply 
to Church work. One denomination holds one thing 
and works in one way, and another denomination de- 
votes itself to another particular and works in another 
way. So one denomination checks another, and different 
denominations stimulate each other. 

Denominations have their place and yet, in instances, 
they may be unnecessary, and the question as to the 
reduction of the number is a proper one for consider- 
ation. Perhaps some should cease, perhaps some 
should combine with other Churches, but these things 
are to be determined not by some abstract theory of 
the duty of all denominations to unite in a single 
Church but by practical conditions and natural re- 
lationships, and by actual needs and advantages, and 
each case must be decided on its own merits. 



XXXY 
THE DIFFICULTIES 

IT is one thing to favor organic unity in the ab- 
stract, but a very different thing to favor a par- 
ticular plan of union. The general principle 
might be admitted, but the working out of details has 
deterred the most enthusiastic. 

Thus some of the strongest advocates of denomina- 
tional union have been brought to a sudden halt by a 
new view of a merely superficial point, and to a dead 
halt by unsuspected difficulties which have suddenly 
developed. 

In the consideration and in the negotiations there are 
two sides and two views. Each side must be thoroughly 
honest and must not betray the trust committed to it, 
and, though neither side may be suspicious, each one 
feels it must be cautious, so as to fairly protect the in- 
terests of its own Church. 

Sometimes anion is not possible, when each side re- 
mains true to its denominational principles, under some 
circumstances, but even when unification is feasible it 
is seldom easy. 

At a given time, or in a particular case, there may be 
insuperable difficulties that, for the time being, at least, 
will make unification absolutely impossible, and often 
there may be such difficulties, that, though there is the 
sincerest desire on both sides for unity, it will be nec- 
essary to postpone negotiations, perhaps, indefinitely or 
for a long time. 

385 



386 AMERICAN METHODISM 

Observation and test show that it is a great mistake 
to imagine that the unifying of two denominations is 
an easy task. It has often been seen that it is difficult 
to combine two local churches of the same denomina- 
tion. If so, it must be much more difficult to unite 
two denominations and make them truly one. 

That the difficulties are very real has been demon- 
strated by the fact that there have been very few, if 
any, complete unions or reunions in American Method- 
ism, notwithstanding there have been very earnest 
efforts to bring about unification. Indeed, as a matter 
of fact, no complete union has really been consum- 
mated between any of the Methodistic divisions, unless 
the reunion of the Methodist Protestants be regarded 
as an exception, but in that case there had been no very 
radical separation, for, at the time, it was declared to 
be temporary or conditional, until relieved from con- 
nection with slavery, and it would seem that even then 
the union did not embrace all. 

That difficulties have been actually experienced in 
the attempted union of Methodistic bodies may be 
quickly seen by those who are familiar with the history. 
Thus a branch of the Methodist Protestants and the 
Wesleyan body that withdrew from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church actually voted and began a combina- 
tion which never became a complete union, for some 
stood out and never combined. Then the Methodist 
Episcopal Church of Canada was supposed by Confer- 
ence action to have united with the British Wesley ans 
of Canada, but parties who denied the right of the Con- 
ference to pass the people over bodily continued the 
Canadian Methodist Episcopal Church for many years. 

The most conspicuous illustration of difficulties in the 



THE DIFFICULTIES 387 

way of union is in the case of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
For fifty years, beginning with 1865, efforts have been 
made to unite these two Churches and yet the union 
has not yet taken place, and the same is true with efforts 
to unite the Methodist Protestant Church with one, 
and with both, of these bodies. 

A noticeable fact is that they have continued in sep- 
aration longer than they were originally together. 

Now, in 1915, the Methodist Protestant Church has 
been separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church 
for about eighty-eight years, and, so to speak, those who 
formed it had been in the Methodist Episcopal Church 
only forty-four or forty-five years, that is to say from 
the time the original Church was organized. In other 
words the Methodist Protestants have been out of the 
Church nearly twice as long as they had been a part of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, or nearly twice as 
long as the age of the original Church when they with- 
drew. 

Turning to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
it will be seen that it has been separated from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church about seventy-one years, 
or from 1845 to 1915, while, so to speak, its founders 
were in the Methodist Episcopal Church only sixty-one 
or sixty-two years, that is to say from 1784 to 1845. 
So that it has been separated, it might be said, longer 
than its people were a part of the original Church. 

This continued continuance of these divisions has 
been one of the serious difficulties in the way of re- 
union, for as the years of separation go on the diver- 
gencies tend to increase. 

That it is a difficult thing to unite denominations, 



388 AMERICAN METHODISM 

and even those that have had a kindred origin and that 
preserve similar characteristics, is shown in the case of 
the two colored Episcopal Methodist denominations, 
the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the 
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, that be- 
came independent early in the nineteenth century. 
These Churches began to talk about uniting fifty-one 
years ago, and they have talked off and on ever since, 
and still they are not one, but two, as they have been 
for about a hundred years. 

It is also remarkable that up to the present time 
no denomination that went out of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church has ever returned to this "Mother 
Church." What the future may bring about remains 
to be seen. 

These difficulties in the way of union, however, are 
not peculiar to Methodistic bodies. The Methodist Prot- 
estant and the United Brethren Churches voted to unite 
several years ago but difficulties developed and the 
union has not yet been consummated. So the Presby- 
terian Church and the Cumberland Presbyterians voted 
to unite, and it was decreed that the union had taken 
place, but there has been much litigation, and still 
everything has not been settled and some who belonged 
to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church still are out- 
standing and resist the union. The Presbyterians and 
the Southern Presbyterians have not yet succeeded in 
uniting, and the Baptists have not reunited with the 
Southern Convention Baptists. Other bodies also have 
had similar experiences. 

The difficulties in the way of ecclesiastical union 
have their roots in various things. Thus there are dif- 
ferences in teaching and in habits of thought. The 



THE DIFFICULTIES 389 

people, even in similar Churches, have a different way 
of looking at questions and a different way of think- 
ing, and in matters of practical action they have differ- 
ent ways of doing things. 

There may be doctrinal difficulties even where in the 
main there is general agreement. There may be serious 
differences on features of Church polity. Particularly, 
and frequently, difficulties are related to property ques- 
tions, bequests, educational endowments, and trust 
funds. These were intended for a specific denomina- 
tion and cannot be alienated from their purpose, and 
the inviolability of contract must be recognized. 

There may be a property trust to be used by a par- 
ticular Church, and by no other, and to be used by it 
under conditions that existed with it as a separate 
body, and which could not be transferred to another or 
different body, and the question might arise, in the 
case of a fusion with another denomination, whether 
the fusion did not make a new and different body in 
such a sense that it would have no valid claim upon 
the fund, the real estate, or other property. If this 
were so then the property would be imperilled and 
might be claimed by a very small minority who did 
not go out, or go into the combination, and who 
claim to represent, and to be, the old Church. 

All these questions must be considered, and should 
be legally worked out, before there is a decision for 
union. 

There is always the difficulty that grows out of at- 
tachment to one's old Church and the Church of one's 
fathers, and a repugnance to the obliteration of ven- 
erable peculiarities. So most people would be opposed 
to combination if through it would come something 



390 AMERICAN METHODISM 

radically different from, and not as pleasing as they 
had in their old Church. Hence, if union will destroy 
the characteristics of one or the other Church, that 
should be distinctly understood, as it would prevent a 
unified spirit, and if it would have as its outcome the 
destruction of what had been regarded as essential, 
doubtless many would not only not favor, but would 
actively oppose the unification. 

If there is something to be gained, there may be 
something to be lost. If there is something to be 
acquired, there may be something to be given up. 
These things should be tabulated and scrutinized, and 
then the Churches must strike a balance before they 
can determine whether the proposed union will pay 
materially, numerically, historically, spiritually, and 
effectively. 

Even under fairly favorable conditions difficulties of 
some kind are likely to appear, but, if the union is 
clearly one that should be brought about, a way may 
be found for its consummation, and where denomina- 
tions are closely akin it would seem possible, and, on 
general principles, desirable to bring about a unifica- 
tion. 



XXXVI 
THE DUTY OF THE CHUKCHES 

IN a general sense, and on general principles, union 
is possible between two Christian denominations, 
and particularly between those that have a com- 
mon origin and have the same doctrines and polity. 

If the spirit of fraternity has been duly cultivated so 
that both Churches feel that they are really one except 
in the legal form of consolidation, then what was a 
possibility becomes a strong probability, and, unless 
there are insurmountable legal or other difficulties in 
the way, the union is likely to take place. 

On the other hand if there is not real fraternity and 
a genuine sense of oneness, a real unification is not 
likely to ensue, no matter how ambitious may be the 
leaders to bring it about, and no matter how able may 
be the lawyers who think they can remove the legal 
obstacles. 

An enforced marriage is not likely to be a happy 
one, and, if the hearts have not come together, it would 
be a crime to marry the parties. The same is true as 
to the marriage of two Churches. There must be 
the preliminary preparation of thought, interest and 
feeling. 

That may require time but the time had better be 
taken than that a mistake be made, for a hasty mar- 
riage is about as bad as an enforced one. 

The consolidation of two denominations involves so 
391 



392 AMERICAN METHODISM 

much that it is better to make haste slowly than to 
rush into an agreement that will be followed by pro- 
longed regret. If there is no joy in the anticipation 
of union the matter better be delayed indefinitely. 

Delay, however, may not be in the way of real prog- 
ress, but may really accelerate the happy consumma- 
tion. 

In the meantime the denominations concerned have 
a duty to perform — a duty as to their own denomination, 
and a duty towards the other denomination or denom- 
inations. 

The first thing is for each denomination to go on 
with its own work and to look after its own interests as 
though no consolidation would take place. It is bad 
policy to assume the certainty of a contingency. The 
combination may never take place and, therefore, to 
neglect one's own interests might prove to be a costly 
error. Too much apparent anxiety for union may de- 
feat itself, as the over-earnest suitor may repel rather 
than attract. A denomination that goes on aggres- 
sively with its own work, as though it did not have 
to combine, but can get along by itself, is more likely 
to attract the other denomination than if it allowed its 
interests to deteriorate on the supposition that the 
other denomination was certain to combine with it. 

On the other hand sheer selfishness is not a winning 
quality. While each denomination is under obligation 
to carry on its own work, it should be considerate of 
others and develop the fraternal spirit. If there are 
bitter antagonisms now, and that spirit is carried into 
the new ecclesiastical combination, it would not mean 
a real unification. 

There is, however, no necessity for such antagonism, 



THE DUTY OF THE CHURCHES 393 

but the two denominatioDS, though operating in the 
same town, should cultivate the spirit of Christian fra- 
ternity, first, because that is right, and, secondly, be- 
cause they are looking forward to a legal oneness. In 
this way they make a Christian present, and prepare 
for an immediate, and a permanent future in the unity 
of the Spirit. 

There is no reason why two denominations working 
in the same place should not work together in peace. 
If they do not there is little hope of organio union. 

The denominations should be friendly, fraternal, 
Christly, considerate, patient, and mutually helpful. 
In this way as each denomination generously recog- 
nizes the rights of the others, union, if proper and de- 
sirable, will come spontaneously and the combining 
Churches will be truly one. 



XXXVII 

STATISTICS OF METHODISTIO BODIES IN 1914 

(In the United States Only) 

THESE are from the figures gathered and ar- 
ranged by H. K Carroll, LL. D., for years 
in charge of the United States Census of the 
Churches. 





Denominations 


Ministers 


Churches 


Communicants 


1. 


Methodist Episcopal, 


18,881 


28,245 


3,603,265 


2. 


Union American Methodist Episcopal,* 


170 


212 


19,000 


3. 


African Methodist Episcopal,* 


5,000 


6,000 


620,000 


4, 


African Union Methodist Protestant,* 


200 


125 


4,000 


5. 


African Methodist Episcopal Zion,* 


3,552 


3,180 


568,608 


6. 


Methodist Protestant, 


1,371 


2,348 


180,382 


7. 


Wesleyan Methodist, 


840 


675 


19,500 


8. 


Methodist Episcopal, South, 


7,099 


16,691 


2,005,707 


9. 


Congregational Methodist, 


337 


333 


15,529 


10. 


New Congregational Methodist, t 


59 


35 


1,782 


11. 


Zion Union Apostolic,* f 


33 


45 


3,059 


12. 


Colored Methodist Episcopal, 


3,072 


3,196 


240,798 


13. 


Primitive, 


70 


92 


8,210 


14. 


Free Methodist, 


1,199 


1,179 


33,828 


15. 


Reformed Methodist Union Episcopal,* 


40 


58 


4,000 


16. 


Independent Methodist, 
Totals, 


2 


2 


1,161 




41,925 


62,416 


7,328,829 




* Colored Churches. t Census for 1906. 









Other Bodies Methodistio in Doctrines and Polity 

Denominations Ministers Churches Communicants 

United Brethren, 1,953 3,583 322,044 

United Brethren (Old Constitution), 307 503 20,972 

Total United Brethren, 2,260 4,086 343,016 

Evangelical Association, 1,031 1,663 115,243 

United Evangelical Church, 538 935 75,050 

Total Evangelicals, 1,569 2,598 190,293 

Adding the communicants of the" United Brethren and Evangelical 
Churches to the total of those who bear the Methodistio title, would make 
a total membership of 7,862,138 in the United States of America alone. 

394 



FACTS AND FIGURES 395 

In addition to the statistical tables, the following is 
condensed from the " Methodist Year Book," for 1915 : 

In 1910, the Independent Methodist Episcopal Church 
of America, and the Free Will Methodist Episcopal 
Church were consolidated, the latter title remaining. 
These are colored Churches. 

The Congregational Methodist Church was organized 
in the South, in 1852. It has 196 churches, 220 min- 
isters, and 10,969 members. 

The Congregational Methodist Church, North, is re- 
ported to have 8 churches, 12 ministers, and 1,000 
members. 

The Primitive Methodist Church of America was 
reported as having 97 churches, 77 ministers, and 
7,295 members. 

The British Methodist Episcopal Church (colored) of 
Canada was said to have 20 churches, 18 ministers, 12 
local preachers, and 685 members. 

The Methodist Church of Canada was reported in 
1914 as having 2,869 ministers, and 368,992 members. 

In 1911, Methodism in Canada was calculated as 
having 14.99 per cent, of the population. 

To this should be added the fact that for some years 
in Canada there has been an effort to unite the Presby- 
terian, the Congregational, and the Methodist Churches, 
but, though representative bodies have favored the proj- 
ect, difficulties continue. Some, it is said, have de- 
clared that if the union is made they will not enter it, 
but will claim the property. 



Index 



The Roman numerals indicate the chapters where the 
subject is treated. The Arabic figures indicate the pages. 



Abingdon, 190 

Abolition Society, Methodist Epis- 
copal, VI, 52 

Abolitionists, John Early on, 53 

Absorption, 193 

Activity of Methodist Episcopal 
Church, renewed in the South, X 

Address, Pastoral, XXIII; to 
Church South General Confer- 
ence, 174 

Addresses, Fraternal, XXV 

Adjustment, Rules for, 227-228 

Advances, Fraternal, 199-218 

Africa, Union in, XXXII ; United 
Church in, 342 

African Methodist Episcopal 
Church, II, XXXII, 16, 171, 172 

African Methodist Episcopal Zion 
Church, II, XXXII, 17, 171 

African Union Church, II, 16 

Agitators, 30, 64 

Aid for the South, X, 95, 96 

Alabama-Georgia Movement, 98 

Albright, Jacob, 372-374 

Albright's People, The, 374 

Allen, Richard, II, 16 

America, Methodist Episcopal 
Church in, I, 14 

America, Wesleyan Methodist 
Connection of, VI, 57 

American Antislavery Society, VI 

American Methodism, I, 5-8, 13, 
14; beginning of, 13, 14; or- 
ganization, 14 ; reorganization, 

H 
American Methodist Episcopal 

Church, I 
Ames, Bishop Edward R., 202 
Andrew, Bishop James O., VII, 



61, 66, 67, 103 ; action on, 61 ; 

not deposed, 61-63; not sus- 
pended, 61-63 
Annual Conference, Independence 

of, III, 18-29; did not concur, 

XI, 119-121 
Annulment of so-called Plan, 121 
Antislavery Convention, 51 
Antislavery Society, American, 

VI, 51 ; New England, VI, 51, 

52 ; New Hampshire, VI, 52 
Apostolic Churches, XXVI, 391 
" Appeal to Records," 253 
Appeal, Without, 324-327 ; cannot 

be deprived of, 326 
Armstrong, Doctor, V, 41, 42 
Asbury, Bishop Francis, 360, 361- 

363, 366, 368, 369 ; consecration 

of, 360, 362 
Associate Methodist Reformers, 

IV, 32 
Australia, Organic Union in, 241 

Baltimore, I, 14, 30-32, 34, 193, 

242, 359, 360. 361, 364 
Bangs, Dr. Nathan, III, 19, 21, 24, 

25» 27, 31 
Barrier, No geographical, 305 
Bascom, Dr. Henry B., XXV, 267 
Bates, Dr. L. W., 197 
Berger, Dr. Daniel, 363 
Bishop, Slave-owning, VII, 60, 6 1 
Bishops, Church South, on union, 

148, 152 
Bishops, Methodist Episcopal, on 

union, 147 ; communication 

from, 165 
Boehm, Henry, XXXIII, 364, 368 
Boehm, Jacob, 367 



397 



398 



INDEX 



Boehm, Bishop Martin, XXXIII, 

359, 360 
Bond, Dr. Thomas E., 33 ; paper 

by, 33 
Book Committee, 42 
Book Concern, 117, 190 
Books on Union, XXIV 
Border, V, IX, 36, 87, 88, 113 
Boring, Dr. Jesse, 244 
Boundary, 113, 114 
Branch, Methodist Episcopal not a, 

2 33 
Branches, XXII, 232, 233 

Brethren, United, 364 

British, 18 

British Army, 361 

British Methodist Episcopal Church 
of Canada (colored), 395 

British Wesleyan Conference, an- 
swer to, 55 

Brotherhood, United, 364 

Brown, George, V, 40-42 

Brunner, Dr. John H., 166, 177, 

255- 2 57 
Buckley, Dr. James M., 214 

Calhoun, John C, IX, 91 
Canada, III, 18-20; action on, 

22 ; British Wesleyans in, 183 ; 

case parallel with Japan, 318, 

319 

Canada Conference, III, 20; 
action on, 22 ; Independence of, 
20, 22-29 

Canada, First Society in, 18 

Canada, Methodist Church of, or- 
ganized, XIX, 185 

Canada, Methodist Episcopal 
Church of, III, 183 ; continued, 
185 

Canada, New Connection Meth- 
odists in, 185 

Canada, Primitive Methodists of, 
186 

Canadian Consolidation, XIX, 183- 
186 

Canadian Separation, III ; asked 
for, 20 

Cape May Commission, XXII, 
219-235, 223, 304 

Capers, Doctor, plan of, 332 



Carlton, Dr. Thomas, X, 96 

Carroll, Dr. H. K., 182, 394 

Catechism, Common, XXVI, 
XXXII, 294-297, 338 

Centennial, American Methodist, 
242 

Centennial, National, 223 

Charleston, 15 

Chattanooga Meeting, XXXII ; 
on Colored Federation, 345 

China, X j publishing interests, 
XXVI 

Christian Advocate, New Orleans, 
XXVI, 289 

Christian Church, I, 16 

Christmas Conference, I, 14, 36 1 

Church, No North, VIII, 86, 100 

Church South, VII, 106 ; forma- 
tion voluntary act of South, 231 ; 
in the North, IX, XXVI, 91 ; 
Missionary Society aided, 95, 
96; self-limited, 71, 100 

Church, Was it divided ? VII, X, 
XI, 102, 116-121, 290 

Churches, Equally Apostolic, XXVI 

Cincinnati, 48, 49, 55, 162 ; meet- 
ings in, on Colored Unification, 

347, 348 
Civil War, IX, 92, 190, 225, 290, 

335 

Claims and counter claims, 220- 
222 

Clark, Alexander, 189 

Clay, Henry, IX, 91 

Cleveland, 163, 164 

Clopton, David, 223 

Coke, Bishop Thomas, D. C. L., 
360, 361, 362 

Collier, Doctor, 187 

Collins, Dr. J. A., 77, 276; amend- 
ment of, 77 ; action upon, 77 

Colored Church, A New, XVIII, 
179-183 

Colored Church, A Combined, 355 

Colored Churches in Tentative 
Scheme, 348-350 

Colored Episcopal Methodists, II, 

xxvi, xxxii, 334.336-337; 

proposed union, 335-355 ; gen- 
erally prefer independence, 354, 
355 



INDEX 



399 



Colored Methodist Episcopal 
Church of America, XVIII, 
XXXII, 179-183; organized, 
180, 

Colored Organic Union, XXVI, 
XXXII, 299 

Colored Organization within Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, 353 

Colored withdrawals, II, 16, 17, 180 

Commission, XXII, XXVI, XXXI, 
XXXII; Joint, XXII, XXVI, 
XXX, XXXI, 228, 294, 301, 
322 ; on Colored Union, XXVI, 
XXXII ; on Federation of Col- 
ored Churches, XXVI, XXXII, 
342-344 ; to settle difficulties, 
208, 209, 223 

Commissions on Federation, 321, 
323 ; combined, 323 

Commissions, Two, White and 
Colored, 345 

Common Catechism, XXVI, 

XXXII, 294, 297, 338 
Common Hymnal, XXVI, XXXII, 

294, 297, 338 
Common Order of Public Worship, 

294, 297, 338 
Conference, New England, VI ; 

New Hampshire, VI ; East 

Pennsylvania, 376 
Conferences, Ecumenical, XXIII 
Conferences, Foreign, III, XXIX, 

19-29 
Conferences, General, see Meth- 
odist Episcopal ; Church South ; 

Protestant 
Conferences, Southern, withdrew, 

65, 106 
Conflict, Irrepressible, 68 
Connection, Methodist, The New, 

in Canada, 185 
Connection, New, 241 
Connection, Wesleyan Methodist, 

VI, 57, 59, 60, 183, 184 
Consolidation, in Canada, XIX, 

183-186 
Constitution of 1808, XI, 118, 119 
Constitution, Old, XXXIII, 370 
Constitution, United Brethren, 

XXXIII, 369 
Contents, 9, 10, 1 1 



Contingency, XI, 109 
Convention, Cincinnati, 162 
Convention, Louisville, 110 
Convention in Nashville, Colored, 

352, 353 
Cooperation, XXVI, XXXII 
Corporate union, 302 
Council, a new title, 322 
Council, Federal, XXX, 321-327 ; 

to be supreme, 325 
Council, Federated, of Bishops, 

Colored, XXXII, 338-342 
Coup d'itat, 325 
Court, Supreme, decision, XI, 1 17— 

121 
Courtesy to Doctor Pierce, VIII, 

77, 78, 81 
Crawford, Dr. Morris, D. C, 223 
Credentials of Doctor Pierce, 74, 

79-82 
Credentials of fraternal delegates, 

210, 212, 223 
Curry, Dr. Daniel, 170 
" Cyclopedia of Methodism," 166 

Declaration, The, of Southern 

Delegates, XI, 65, 66, 104, 105, 

108, 115 
Declaration, Reply to, XI, 104, 

108, 109, 113 
Delegate, First, from Church South, 

71,72 
Delegates to General Conference, 

30, 20 1 
Delegates, Southern, 202, 210, 218, 

223 
Delegation, Lay, IV 
Denny, Dr. Collins, 276 
Denominations, Value of, XXXIV, 

384 

Desirability of Union, XXXIV 

Difficulties, Adjustment of, 227- 
230 

Difficulties in way of union, 
XXXV, 385-390 

Difficulties, Roots of, 389 

Dillenberg, 358 

" Disruption of Church," 253 

Dissolution of Relation by South- 
ern Convention, VII, XI, 69, 87, 
106, 1 10, 169; effect of, 87 



400 



INDEX 



Disunion, 103 

Divided themselves, VII, XI, 69, 
106 

Divided, Was the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church ? VII, XI, 119 

Division, 5-7, 103 ; responsibility 
for, VII, XI, 68, 69, 106 

Divisions have advantages, 384 

Doggett, Bishop, 202 

Dorsey, Dennis B., IV, 21, 32 

Dreisbach, John, 375 

Drinkhouse, Dr. Edward J., 40, 

43. 44, 5°. 153. 157, *5 8 » l6o » 
161, 190, 198; History by, 153 
Duncan, Dr. James A., 210, 214, 

2I 5 

Duty of Churches in matter of 
Union, XXXVI, 391-393 

Duty of Methodist Episcopal 
Church in South, XIII, 137 

Early, John, 53 

Early withdrawals, II, 15-17 

Ecumenical Conferences, XXIII, 

236, 244 
Emancipation of slaves, X, 96 
Embury, Philip, 18 
Emergency, Meeting, VII, XI, 

I0 5 
Emory, Dr. John, III, IV, 21, 32, 

33 J P a P er b Y. 3 2 , 33 

Episcopacy, Slaveholding in, VII 

Episcopacy, Wesleyan idea of, 362 

Episcopal Address to General Con- 
ference of 1864, 97 

Episcopal Church, I ; Protestant, 
XVII, 170 

Episcopal Methodists, I, XXVI, 
XXXII ; Colored, XXXII 

Erie, 148 

Evangelical Association, XXXIII, 

171. 334. 370-375 

Evangelical Association, disrup- 
tion, 376 ; causes of, 376 

Evangelical Church, United, 
XXXIII, 333, 375-376 

Evangelical Reformed Church, 
The, 360, 365 

Evans, Rev. James E., 154, 244 

Events following Church South 
organization, IX, 87-93 



Expelled persons, IV, 31, 32; 
restoration of, IV, 33 

Facts and Figures, 395 

Fancher, Judge Enoch L., 223 

Federal, new word, 322 

Federal Council, XXX, 321-327; 
impracticable, 326, 327 

Federated Council of Bishops, 
XXXII 

Federation, XXVI, XXVII, XXX, 
287, 288, 304, 306, 321 ; disap- 
pointing, 306; attempts at, 
XXVI, 287-303 ; out of South, 
289, 291, 292; between Method- 
ist Episcopal and Church South, 
XXVI; not unity, 289, 304; 
spirit of, 339 

Federation, Commissions on, 
XXVI ; attempt too much, 308 ; 
joint, XXVI, 322, 328 ; in prac- 
tice, XXVII, 304-308; do not 
prevent friction, XXVII, 305, 
306, 308 

Finley, Rev. J. B., VII, 61 ; sub- 
stitute of, 61 

Finney, Thomas M., 223 

Fisk, General Clinton B., 202, 223 

Foreign Conferences, Status of, 

III, XXIX, 21, 22 

Foreign Missions, Status of, III, 

XXIX, 22, 23 

Foreign country, Independence in, 

III, XXIX, 22, 32O 

Foreign country, Separation in, 

III, XXIX, 20, 314 
Foreign territory, III, XXIX, 318; 

status of, 18-29, 318, 320 
Foster, Bishop Randolph S., 

XXIII, XXIV, 244, 250, 251 
Fowler, Bishop Charles H., 201, 

244 
Fraternal addresses, XXI, XXIII 
Fraternal advances, XXI, 199-218 
Fraternal delegate, VIII, 73, 75, 

201 
Fraternal messengers, 188, 192 
Fraternal relations, 76, 78, 84, 85 
Fraternity, VIII, XXI, XXIII, 

72, 199, 200, 218, 288, 321; 

spirit of, 391-393 



INDEX 



401 



Fraternity complete, 230, 231 
Fraternity in Conferences, XXI 
Frederick City, 364 
Free Speech, IV, 32, 33 
Fuller, Dr. Erasmus Q., 223, 253, 
254, 255 

Garland, Dr. L. C, 210, 216, 217 

Garrettson, Freeborn, 361 
Garrison, William Lloyd, VI, 51 
General Conference, Methodist 
Episcopal, VII ; action in case of 
Canada, 22-29 ; actions of not 
final, 119, 120; greatly limited 
after 1808, 118; limited power 
of, 116-119; no power to destroy 
Church, in whole or part, 102 ; 
power over foreign territory, 22- 
24 
General Conference of 1784, 118 
General Conference of 1808, made 

new Constitution, 118, 119 
General Conference of 1836, 52-55 
General Conference of 1840, 55 
General Conference of 1844, 6o» 
61 ; action of, 6 1 ; did not 
divide Church, 101, 102, 119; 
did not turn over all South to 
Church South, 101 ; different 
kind from 1784, 118; members 
surviving in 1884, 244 
General Conference of 1848, XI, 
71-76; actions in regard to 
Doctor Pierce, 75 ; action on 
Doctor Pierce's letters, 75, 76 ; 
complaints before, 76, 91 ; de- 
clared actions of 1844 null and 
void, 121 ; repudiated actions 
and asserted actions of 1844, 
120-122 
General Conference of 1864, 97 ; 
action of, 97 ; Bishop's address 
to, 97 
General Conference of 1868, de- 
liverance on union and disunion, 
172 
General Conference, Methodist 

Episcopal Church, South, 71 
General Conference of 1846, 71 
General Conference of 1866, 149; 
repudiates line and limits, 201 



General Conference of 1874, 202 ; 

address to, 174; action of, 175 
General Conference, Methodist 

Protestant, 34, 43, 44, 47, 48 
General rules on slavery, 56 
Genesee Conference, III, 46 
Geographical barrier, No, 305 
Geographical line, No, 292, 305, 

306 
Geographical sections, 330 
George, Rev. Augustus C, 239, 240 
Georgia-Alabama Movement, 98 
German- American Methodism, 

XXXIII, 357-377 
Germans, Pennsylvania, 357 
German Reformed Church, 358, 

365 
German work in Texas, XXVI 
Great Britain, 19 

Hammit, Rev. William, 15 
Harbaugh, Doctor, 365 
Hargrove, Dr. Robert K., 223 
Harris, Dr. and Bishop W. L., 

173. 223 
Harrison, Dr. W. P., XXIV, 258, 

259 
Haven, Gilbert, 171 
Hawkins, Prof. J. R., 340 
Heck, 18 

Hedding, Bishop Elijah, 52 
Hering, Hon. J. W., 284, 285 
Honda, Bishop Y., 316 
Horton, Jotham, 57 
Hoss, Dr. E. E., 247, 248, 275 
Hunt, Dr. Albert S., 201, 245 
Hunter, Rev. Andrew, 244 
Hunter, Dr. William, 192 
Hymnal, Common, 343 
Hypes, Dr. W. L., 244 

Immigration into South, 140 
Independence of Canada, III, 18- 

29 
Independence of Japan, XXIX, 

3" 

Independence possible in foreign 

country, III, XIX, 320 
Independence, Impulse towards, 

335 



402 



INDEX 



Independence, Reasons for, 353, 

354 
Index, 397 
Indianapolis, 376 

Jackson, Judge, 203 

Janes, Bishop Edmund S., 165, 

166, 173, 191, 202, 211,223 
Japan, independence, XXIX, 311, 
313, 315, 316 ; mission work in, 
311; parallel case with Canada, 
318, 319 ; petition for autonomy, 
311, 312, 314; principles in- 
volved, 317-320; unification, 
XXIX, 311-320 
Joint Commission's report, XXXI 
Jurisdiction dissolved, VII, XI 
Jurisdiction, Quadrennial, 330 
Justice of Court in error, XI, 117- 



Kantoku, 316 

Keener, Dr. John C, 175 ; elected 

Bishop, 177 
Kemp, Peter, 364 
Kenney, Dr; Wesley, 188 
Kilgo, Dr. John C, 275 
Kleinfeltersville, 374 

Laity, IV, 30 

Lay delegation, IV, 30 

Law of demand and supply, 383 

Lee, Dr. L. M., 154 

Letters from Doctor Pierce, 73-75, 

79 
Lewis, Dr. T. H., 284-286 
Limitations on South, self-imposed, 

262 
Lincoln, President, 96 
Line of division, 113, 262, 292 
Line of separation, so-called, XI, 
1 1 1- 1 24; disregarded, 122; no 
geographical, 262, 292, 305, 
306 ; no such, 262 ; not Mason 
and Dixon's, 1 1 1 ; obliterated, 
122-125 
Local preachers, 30 
Losee, Rev. William, 18 
Louisville, 106, no, 168 
Lovely Lane Chapel, 36 1 



Lynchburg, 48, 188, 192 

Maclay, Dr. R. S., 311 

Majority, 376 

Mason and Dixon's Line, XI, 69, 
in; not line of separation, 69, 
in 

Matlack, Dr. Lucius C, 57 

Mattison, Dr. Hiram, 161, 162 

McCaine, Alexander, 44, 45 

McDonald, J. F., 341 

McFerrin, Rev. J. B., 243, 244 

McTyeire, Bishop Holland N., 94, 
i53» 154, 179-181, 212, 336 

Mennonites, 359, 360 

Merrill, Bishop Stephen M., 188, 
242, 260-263 

Methodism, American, 5,6; influ- 
ence of, 5, 6 ; unification of, 7 

Methodist Church, The, formation, 
1 6 1- 1 64 ; meeting in Baltimore, 
194, 195 ; union with Methodist 
Protestants, 187-198; united 
procession, 196 

Methodists, Episcopal, 14; Chris- 
tian Church, 16; Colored, 180; 
Primitive, 15; Protestant, 34; 
Republican, 15; Reformed, 58; 
Wesleyan, 56 

Methodist Episcopal Church, 14 ; 
aids the South, 95-97 ; cannot 
abandon South, 200; colored 
work in South, 131, 132; did 
not divide itself, 101-107 ; efforts 
for union, 144; for whole coun- 
try, 126; in America, 14, 100; 
in foreign lands, 20; in the 
South after 1844 and 1845, 127- 
136 ; in the United States, 14, 
100 ; never out of South, 69, 72 ; 
no Church North, 101 ; not a 
branch but original, 88-90, 93, 
103 ; organization of, 14, 362 ; 
present duty in South, 137 ; 
remained in slave territory, 
69; remained in South, 69; re- 
news activity in farther South, 
94; results of work in South, 
127-136; right in South, 99- 
126; slavery a barrier to, 96; 
title never changed, 100; uni- 



INDEX 



403 



fying force, 130; was it divided? 
116; white work in South, 
132-136 

Methodist Episcopal Church, the 
African, 16 ; the African Zion, 
16 ; the British (Colored), in 
Canada, 186, 395 ; the Canadian, 
III, 23, 183-186,395; the Col- 
ored, 180-182 

Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
VII, 64, 87, 106; address to 
General Conference by Meth- 
odist Episcopal Bishops in 1870, 
174; against union, 206, 208, 
2IO, 234 ; colored membership, 
334-336 ; commission to settle 
obstacles, 208, 209 ; entered the 
North, 91 ; events following for- 
mation, 87-93 ; favors fraternity, 
209 ; formation, voluntary act of 
Solith, 231 ; not for organic 
unity, 209, 210 ; organized, 106 ; 
proposed union with Methodist 
Protestant Church, XV, .152- 
160; reaffirms views on slavery, 
207 ; reasons against union, 207 ; 
self-limited, VII, XI, 71, 100, 
262; separated, VII, XI, 106; 
set off colored members, XVIII, 

179. 334, 336 
Methodist Protestant Church, 30- 
34, 58 ; and slavery, 39, 40 ; 
General Conference of, 34; in- 
vited to unite with Methodist 
Episcopal, 283; on tentative 
suggestion, 329 ; organization, 
34 ; proposed union with Church 
South, 152-160; with Methodist 
Episcopal Church, 329; with 
United Brethren Church, 333 ; 
separation from, 48 ; terms of 
union with South, 155-157 ; 
union with the Methodist Church, 
187-198; withdrawal from, 50 
Methodist Protestant, The, 190 
Methodist Recorder, The, 187, 189; 
The London, 239 ; The Western, 
341 
Methodist reformers, IV, 30, 32 
" Methodist Union," Harrison's, 
258 



Methodistic bodies, statistics of, 394 

Michigan, 56 

Michigan Conference, 44, 46 

Miles, Bishop W. H., 181 

Miller, George, 375 

Minority, 354, 376 

Missionary Society, Methodist 

Episcopal, aiding Church South, 

X 
Mobile, 338 

Modus Vivendi, XXII, 224, 306 
Momentous events, 87-93 
Montgomery, 153, 154 
Moravians, 364, 365 
Morris, Bishop Thomas A., 165, 

166 
Morris, Dr. J. C, 274 
Muskingum Conference, 46 
Mutual Rights, IV, 31 
Myers, Dr. Edward H., article, 

166-168, 223, 253 

Naperville, 376 

Nashville Convention, XXXII, 352 

National Union, 91-93 

Neal, George, 18 

Need of South, X 

New Connection Methodists of 

Canada, 185 
New England Antislavery Society, 

VI, 51 
New England Conference, 52 
New Hampshire, 52 
Newman, Dr. John F., 223 
New Orleans Advocate, 289 
New South, 141 
New York, 16 
New York Conference, 18, 150, 

l S l 

New York East Conference, 149, 

Nippon Methodist Kyokwai, 316 
Non-sectionalism, 140, 142, 143 
North, no Church, VIII, XI, 86, 

100 
Northern people in South, 308 
Northern withdrawal, VI, 5 1 

Ogburn, Rev. T. J., 249 
O'Kelly, Rev. James, II, 15 
Orders, Clerical, 362, 363 



404: 



INDEX 



Oregon, 291 

" Organic Union," Bishop Mer- 
rill's, 260 

Organic Union, XIV, XXIV, XXV, 
XXVI, XXXIV, 241, 346 

Organic Unity, XXXIV, 210, 339, 
345> 377» 378; dangers in, 381; 
difficulties in way of, XXXIV, 
XXXV, 385-390 ; federation is 
not, 289 ; not an easy task, 385 ; 
requisites for, 383 

Otterbein, Bishop Philip William, 
XXXIII, 357-368; assists in 
consecration of Asbury, 362; 
death and burial, 368, 369 ; re- 
lation to Asbury and Methodism, 
363 

Paine, Bishop Robert, 180 

Palatinate, Rhenish, 357 

Pan-Methodistic Conferences, 
XXIII, 236-252 

Pastoral Addresses, 242, 243, 25 1, 
252 

Peck, Bishop Jesse F., 211 

Pending Suggestions of Union, 
XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, 328- 
334 

Perkins, Hon. G. B., 274 

Philadelphia, 16, 51, 361, 376 

Phillips, Bishop C. H., 341 

Pierce, Dr. Lovick, VIII, XXI, 
73> 77» J 76; courtesies to, 77, 
78, 81 ; delegate, 73 ; delegate, 
recognized as, 75, 76, 84 ; delay 
in presenting credentials, 74 ; 
difference between letter and 
credentials, 79, 82 ; General 
Conference action, 75, 76 ; let- 
ters from, 73-75, 79, 213; 
method of approach, 73, 74; 
recognizes Methodist Episcopal 
title, 86 ; fraternal delegate, 
1876, 202, 210, 211, 213 

Pittsburgh, 40, 46, 187 

Plan of Separation, so-called, XI, 
82, 85, 107-112; annulled, 120- 
122; cancelled, XI, 121-124; 
not a plan of, 262; null and 
void, 85, 121 

Plan for Union, XXVIII, 309; 



tentative, 328-334; action on, 

329 

Polity, Questions of, 30-34 
Polk, Governor Trusten, 203 
Pool, William C, 32 
Porter, Dr. James, 32 
Practice, Federation in, XVII 
Preachers, Itinerant, 30 ; local, 30 
Primitive Methodists, II, 15, 186 
Proffers of Union, XIV, XVII, 

165-178 
Property questions, 220-222, 224, 

225 
Protestant Episcopal Church, 17 1 
Protestant Methodists, VI, 58 
Protestant view of unity, 379 
Protest, The, from Southern dele- 
gates, VII, XI, 63, 67 ; reply to, 
VII, 63, 67, 68 

Quadrennial General Confer- 
ences, 34 

Quadrennial Jurisdictional Confer- 
ences, 330, 334, 349 

Questions as to Commissions on 
Colored Churches, 348 

Rappahannock River, 115, 116 
Reception of Old Church in South, 

97,98 
Reentering the Far South, X, 97, 98 
Reese, Eli Yeates, 42 
Reformed Church, Evangelical, 

The, 360 
Reformed Methodists, 58 
Reformers, VI, 30; associate 

Methodist, 32 ; petition from, 32 
Reid, Rev. C. F., 247 
Reorganization, Union by, XXXI 
Reorganization is disorganization, 

331 
Reply to Declaration, XI, 104, 108, 

109 
Reply to Protest, VII, XI, 63, 67, 

68 
Republican Methodists, II, 16, 17 
Results of work in South, XII, 

127-136 
Resolutions of Appreciation, 203 
Resolutions from Committee, 204, 

205 



INDEX 



405 



Resolutions to members of Con- 
ference of 1844, 244 

Return to Farther South, 97 

Reunion of three Churches, 328 

Reynolds, Dr. A. L., 284, 285 

Rhenish Palatinate, 357 

Rhine Country, 357 

Ridgaway, Dr. H. B., 244, 267- 
272 

Right in the South, X, XI, 99 

Right to reenter Farther South, 99- 
126 

Right in 1865, XI, 125 

Right in South not disputed, 229 

Robinson, James, 189 

Ryland, Rev. William, 367 

Saint Louis Meeting, 175 
Scott, Bishop I. B., 352 
Scott, Dr. John, 190 
Scott, Bishop Levi, 202 
Scott, Orange, 53, 54, 57 
Scriptures, Defense of slavery from, 

45 

Secession of States attempted, IX, 

Sectional divisions, 331, 349 
Sectionalism, X, 97, 140, 142, 147 
Sectionalized Church, No, XXI, 

143, 265 
Sehon, Dr. Edmund W., 204 
Separation, act of Southern Confer- 
ences, VII, XI ; foreign, 18-29; 
line of, XI, 1 1 1-1 16 ; long stand- 
ing' 387 ; Methodist Protestant, 
V, XX, 48 ; not, but withdrawal, 
VII ; not made by Methodist 
Episcopal Church, 104, 1 1 1 ; 
so-called plan of, 82, 85, 107- 
112 
Shinn, Asa, V, 40, 41, 44 
Simpson, Bishop Matthew, 166, 

168, 202, 236-238 
Slavery, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI ; 
a barrier in South, VII, IX, 
146, 147; abolition of, 96; 
antislavery, 5 1 ; controversy, 
37 ; defense of, 35, 36 ; defense 
of from Scriptures, 45 ; disci- 
pline on, 56 ; disturbing influ- 
ence, 35-40 ; divisive influence, 



35-40; ecclesiastical issue, 36, 
37 ; general conferences, 60 ; 
general rules on, 56 ; in Church, 
60 ; in Methodist Episcopal 
Church, 52; in nation, 52; in 
North and South, 35 ; Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, con- 
cessions to, 38, 39 ; Methodist 
Episcopal Church, old laws 
against, 38 ; Methodist Episco- 
pal Church opposed, 38, 39 ; 
Methodist Protestant Church and, 
39. 40, 43. 44; North against, 
5 1 ; opposition to, 35 ; polit- 
ical issue, 36, 37 ; question of, 
50 ; the South for, V, VII 

Slaveholding, V, VI, VII, IX; 
bishop, VII, 60 ; in Episcopacy, 
VII, 60 

Slave territory, 69, 70 

Smith, Rev. A. Coke, 245, 248, 249 

Smith, Bishop C. S., 241 

Smith, Rev. J. J., 197 

Societies, Secret, 163, 369 

South aided, X, 95, 96 

Southgate, Rev. E. L., 249, 250 

South in need, 94, 95 

South, The Methodist Episcopal 
Church never out of the, IX, X, 
88-90, 93 

South, The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, self-limited, VII, XI, 
71, 100 

South, Right in, not disputed, 229 

Southern Conferences, withdrawal, 
VII, 65 

Southern Convention withdraws, 
VII 

Southern Convention organizes a 
Church South, VII 

Southern delegates, VII, VIII, 
XXI ; protest of, VII, XI 

Southern withdrawal, VII, XI, 60 

Sovereign power, XI, 1 17, 1 18 

Spencer, Peter, II, 16 

Springfield, Ohio, 49 

Stanton, Henry B., 53 

Starr Church* XX, 196 

Statistics, XXXVII, 134-136, 181, 
394 

Status, of Churches, XXII, 231, 



406 



INDEX 



232; of foreign territory, III, 
XXIX, 317-320; of home land, 
317, 318, 319 
Steel, Dr. Samuel A., 273 
Stockton, Dr. Thomas H., 42 
Substitute, The Finley, VII, 61 
Succession, Clerical, 362, 363 ; 
double in American Methodism, 
Anglican and Continental Re- 
formed, 363 
Suggestions of Union, XIV, XV, 
XVII, XIX, XX, XXIV, XXV, 

XXVIII, XXXI, XXXII, 
XXXIII, 328-334 

Summers, Dr. Thomas O., 212 
Sunderland, Rev. La Roy, 52, 57 
Superintendents or bishops, 362, 
3 6 5> 374 J Otterbein and Boehm 
elected, 365 ; Albright elected, 
374 ; Asbury elected, 362 
Supply and demand, Law of, 383 
Supreme Court decided only one 

thing, XI, 117-121 
Supreme Court remarks not de- 
cisions, XI, 1 1 7-1 2 1 

Tentative suggestions, XXXI, 

328-334 ; General Conference 

action on, 329 
Terms of Union, XV, XXXI, 155- 

157 ; Church South answer to, 

XV, 157, 158 
Thomas, Dr. Frank M., 276-278 
Thompson, George, 53 
Tiffany, Dr. Otis EL, 240, 241 
Tigert, Dr. J. J., 273 
Title of Methodist Episcopal 

Church never changed, 100 
Tomlinson, Joseph S., 77 
Trimble, Rev. Joseph M., 244 
Tulpehocken, 359 

Unification, 7, 329; in Japan, 

XXIX, 311-320; of Colored 
Episcopal Methodism, 342, 343 

Union American Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, 16, 336, 337 

Union among Colored Churches, 
XXXII 

Union, Church South against, 206 

Union of Methodist and Methodist 



Protestant Churches, XX, 187-. 
198 
" Union of the Churches," 255 
Union, National, 5, 6, 91-93 
Union, Proffers of, XIV, 144-151 ; 
made and renewed, XVII, 165- 
178 
Union societies, IV, 31 
Union with other Churches, 309, 

310 
Union, addresses on, XXIII, XXV; 
attempted, of colored Churches, 
337» 33^ > attitude of Church 
South towards, 148 ; corporate, 
302 ; books on, XXIV ; duty of 
Churches in relation to, XXXIV- 
XXXVI; efforts of Methodist 
Episcopal Church for, 144-151 ; 
efforts renewed, XVII, 165- 
178; is it desirable? XXXIV, 
378-384 ; not abstract but con- 
crete, 378 ; of the Methodist 
and the Methodist Protestant 
Churches, XX, 187-198 ; pend- 
ing suggestions for, XXXI, 338- 
339 ; plan for, XXVIII ;* pro- 
posed, between Church South 
and Methodist Protestant Church, 
XV, 152-160; reasons for and 
against, 380-381 ; suggestions 

of, 3 2 8-334 

Unitas Fratrum, 364 

United Brethren in Christ, XXXIII, 
363, 370; rules and doctrines, 
364 ; (Old Constitution), 
XXXIII, 368-370 ; proposed 
union with Methodist Protestants, 

333 
United Episcopal Methodist Church 

in Africa, 342 
United Evangelical Church, 

XXXIII, 375, 376 {organized, 

377 
" United ministers," 360 
United States of America, 14, 361 ; 

Church in, 14, 319 
Unity, more than one kind, 378, 

379 
Unity, Organic, 210, 241, 303, 339, 
345» 346, 377.378; advantages 
of, XXXIV; dangers 0% 



INDEX 



407 



XXXIV, 381; difficulties of, 
XXXIV, XXXV, 281, 385 ; too 

much expected from, 382 ; will 
not remedy all evils, 382 

Upper Canada, 18-20, 183, 1 84 

Utica Convention, 57 

Vance, Robert B., 223 
Vasey, Thomas, 362 
Virginia, 115, 116 

Walden, Bishop John M., 244 

Walter, John, 375 

Walters, Bishop A., 341 

War, Civil, IX, 92, 190 

War of 1812-1814, 19 

Warren, Bishop Henry W., 282, 
285, 286 

Washington, 244, 291, 338, 344 

Wesley, John, 5, 13, 14, 358, 359, 
361, 362, 365 

Wesleyanism, 13, 14 

Wesleyan Connection, 241 

Wesleyan Methodism, 13 

Wesleyan Methodists, 56 ; in Can- 
ada, 241 

Wesleyan Methodist Connection of 
America, VI, 57, 59, 60; or- 
ganized, 57 

Wesleyan societies, I, 14, 361 ; re- 
organization in America, 14, 361 



Wesleyans, British, in Canada, 183, 

184 
West Virginia, 89, 98 
Whatcoat, Richard, 362 
Whedon, Dr. D. A., 217 
Whedon, Dr. D. D., 255 
Whittier, John Greenleaf, 5 1, 53 
Wilmington, 16 
Withdrawal, a Northern, VI, 51, 

57,58 
Withdrawal of Conferences, VII 
Withdrawal of Primitives, 15 
Withdrawal of Republican Meth- 
odists, 16, 17 
Withdrawal of Southern Confer- 
ences, own act solely, VII, XI 
Withdrawal on polity, IV, 34 
Withdrawal, The Southern, VII, 
60, 65, 66 ; caused by slavery, 
65,66 
Withdrawals, Canadian, III ; col- 
ored, II ; early, II, 15-17 
Witness, The Christian, 40 
Worship, common order, XXVI, 
XXXII, 297, 338 

Yeakel, Dr. R., 375 

Zion, African Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, II, XXXII, 
17, I7«» 335* 336-338, 343, 344, 
345 



PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



HOMILETICS AND CHURCH WORK 



CHARLES SILV ESTER HORNE Yale Lectures on 

" Preaching 

The Romance of Preaching 

With an Introduction by Charles R. Brown, D.D., 
Dean of Yale Divinity School, and a Biographical 
Sketch by H. A. Bridgman, Editor of The Congre- 
gationalist. With Portrait. i2mo, cloth, net $1.25. 

"From the days when Henry Ward Beecher gave the first 
series of lectures on the Lyman Beecher Foundation in Yale 
University . . . the task of inspiring young ministers to 
nobler effort in their high calling, has been well performed. 
But among all the lecturers few have ever so gripped the 
divinity students, the larger audience of pastors in active 
service, as did Silvester Home. The intellectual distinction 
whioh marked his utterances, the fine literary form in which 
they were phrased, the moral passion which gave to their 
delivery that energy which belongs to words which are 'spirit 
and life,' together with the rare spiritual insight displayed 
all combined to make notable the service rendered by Mr. 
Home to Yale University." — Charles R. Brown, D.D., Dean 
of Yale Divinity School. 

The last message of a leader of men. 

BISHOP THOMAS B. NEELY, Of the Methodist 

l Episcopal Church 

The Minister in the Itinerant System 

i2mo, cloth, net $1.00. 

"Bishop Neely discusses frankly the fact that large num- 
bers of strong men eagerly accept official service, leaving the 
intinerant pastorate. He states the system itself briefly, but 
the burden of the book is a full discussion of the bearing of 
it all on the minister himself. It was to be presumed of 
course that a Methodist bishop would conclude that 'the sys- 
tem should be maintained' and even that 'the appointing 
power should be untrammelled'; but it is none the less in- 
teresting to follow the argument. We do not know any other 
book which states the whole case with such eminent fair- 
ness." — The Continent. 

EDMUND S. LORENZ, B. D. 

Practical Church Music 

A Discussion of Purpose, Methods and Plans. New 
Popular Edition. i2mo, cloth, net $1.00. 

"Mr. Lorenz has had thirty years' active experience with 
both the theoretical and practical sides of church music in 
all its forms. This is one of the most practical books on the 
subject of church music we have^ ever read. Every page is 
suggestive and every suggestion is eminently practical. The 
book closes with a worthy appendix dealing with musical and 
hymnological books worth owning, choice church music for 
choir and solo use, and suggestive outlines and subjects for 
gong sermons and song services," — Advance. 



DEVOTIONAL 



JOHN HENRY JOWETT 

My Daily Meditation for the circling Year 

i2mo, cloth, net $1.25. 

A series of choice, tabloid talks — a spiritual meditation 
for every day in the year. Dr. Jowett points every word of 
these brief expositions so that it tells, while the lessons he 
seeks to convey are so propounded as to enter the under- 
standing of his readers along a pathway of light. The whole 
volume is of true mintage, bearing the impress of Dr. Jowett's 
ripest thought and fruitful mind. 

S. D. GORDON 

Quiet Talks About the Crowned Christ 

i2mo, cloth, net 75c. 

After many years' study of the one book of the Bible 
devoted to the subject of the crowned Christ — the Revelation 
of John — Mr. Gordon has put these latest talks together. No 
book of the sixty-six has seemed so much like a riddle, and 
set so many guessing. Mr. Gordon, however, holds the deep 
conviction that it is wholly a practical book, and concerned 
wholly with our practical daily lives. 

F. B. MEYER, B.J . 

My Daily Prayer 

A Short Supplication for Every Day in the Year. 
32mo, leather, net 35c; cloth, net 25c. 

"This is a tiny volume, in the 'Yet Another Day' series, 
and contains a brief prayer for each day in the year. Some 
of the petitions contain only one sentence, but each one is 
simple, pertinent, and helpful." — Zion's Herald. 

GEORGE MATHESON 

Day Unto Day 

A Brief Prayer for Every Day. New Bdition. 
i6mo, cloth, net 50c 

These choice prayers will be valued by the Christian 
world for the stimulus, inspiration, and wide spiritual out- 
look which have made the memory of their author a cher- 
ished possession. 

HENRY WARD BEECHER 

A Book of Public Prayer 

l2mo, cloth, net 75c 

"A distinct addition to our devotional literature. It is good 
for private reading; but would be especially valuable for 
ministers as an aid to the difficult, but immensely important, 
service of voicing the petitions of a congregation in public 
prayer." — Standard. 



SERMONS— LECTURES— ADDRESSES 



JAMES L. GORDON, P.P. 

All's Love Yet All's Law 

i2mo, cloth, net $1.25. 

"Discloses the secret of Dr. Gordon's eloquence — fresh, 
and intimate presentations of truth which always keep close 
to reality. Dr. Gordon also seems to have the world's litera- 
ture at his command. A few of the titles will give an idea 
of the scope of his preaching. 'The Law of Truth: The 
Science of Universal Relationships'; 'The Law of Inspiration; 
The Vitalizing Power of Truth'; 'The Law of Vibration'; 
'Th« L,aw of Beauty: The Spiritualizing Power of Thought'; 
The Soul's Guarantee of Immortality." — Christian Work. 
BISHOP FRANCIS J. McCONNELL Cole Lectures 

Personal Christianity 

Instruments and Ends in the Kingdom of God. 
l2mo, cloth, net $1.25. 

The latest volume of the famous "Cole Lectures" delivered 
at Vanderbilt University. The subjects are: I. The Per- 
sonal in Christianity. II. The Instrumental in Christianity. 
III. The Mastery of World- Views. IV. The Invigoration 
of Morality. V. The Control of Social Advance. VI. 
"Every Kindred, and People, and Tongue." 

NEWELL D WIGHT H1LLIS, P. D. 

Lectures and Orations by Henry Ward 
Beecher 

Collected by Newell Dwight Hillis. l2mo, net $1.20. 

It is fitting that one who is noted for the grace, finish and 
eloquence of his own addresses should choose those of his 
predecessor which he deems worthy to be preserved in a 
bound volume as the most desirable, the most characteristic 
and the most dynamic utterances of America's greatest pulpit 
orator. 

W. L. WATKINSON, P.P. 

The Moral Paradoxes of St. Paul 

i2mo, cloth, net $1.00. 

"These sermons are marked, even to greater degree than 
is usual with their talented preacher, by clearness, force and 
illustrative aptness. He penetrates unerringly to the heart 
of Paul's paradoxical settings forth of great truths, and il- 
lumines them with pointed comment and telling illustration. 
The sermons while thoroughly practical are garbed in strik- 
ing and eloquent sentences, terse, nervous, attention-com- 
pelling." — Christian World. 

LEN G. BROUGHTON, P.P. 

The Prodigal and Others 

i2mo, cloth, net $1.00. 

"The discourses are vital, bright, interesting and helpful. 
It makes a preacher feel like preaching once more on this 
exhaustless parable, and will prove helpful to all young people 
— and older ones, too. Dr. Broughton does not hesitate to 
make his utterances striking and entertaining by the intro- 
duction of numerous appropriate and homely stories and illus- 
trations- He reaches the heart."— Review and Expositor. 



ESSAYS AND STUDIES 



JOSEPH FOR T NE WTON Author of ' ' The Eternal 

" Christ? ' * 'David Swing* ' 

What Have the Saints to Teach Us? 

A Message from the Church of the Past to the 
Church of To-day. i2mo, cloth, net 50c. 

"Of that prof ©under life of faith and prayer and vision 
which issues in deeds of daring excellence, the Pilgrims of 
the Mystic Way are _ the leaders and guides; and there is 
much in our time which invites their leadership." — Preface. 

JOHN BALCOM SHAW, P.P. 

The Angel in the Sun 

Glimpses of the Light Eternal. Cloth, net $1.00. 

Dr. Shaw has prepared a series of spirited addresses 
marked throughout by sincerity and fine feeling, and free 
of all philosophical surmise, or theological cavil. "The Angel 
In The Sun" is a refreshing and enheartening book; the 
cheery word of a man of unswerving faith to his compan- 
ions by the way. 

PHILIP MAURO 

® Looking for the Saviour 

i2mo, cloth, net 35c; paper, 20c. 

The first part of this little volume is devoted to an exami- 
nation of the chief reasons that have been advanced in sup- 
port of the post-tribulation view of the Rapture of the Saints. 
The second part contains some affirmative teaching relating 
to the general subject of the lord's return. 

PROF. LEE R. SCARBOROUGH 

Recruits for World Conquests 

i2mo, cloth, net 75c. 

"Here is a soul-stirring message, presenting the call and the 
need and the response we should make. The author is deeply 
spiritual, wise, earnest and conservative in presenting his ap- 
peal. — Word and Way. 

PRINCIPAL ALEXANPER JVHYTE, P. P. 

Thirteen Appreciations 

i2mo, cloth, net $1.50. 

Appreciations of Santa Teresa, Jacob Boehme, Bishop An- 
drews, Samuel Rutherford, Thomas Shepard, Thomas Good- 
win, Sir Thomas Browne, William Law, James Fraser of 
Brea, Bishop Butler, Cardinal Newman, William Guthrie and 
John Wesley, go to the making of Dr. Whyte's new book, a 
work of high authority, revealing on every page the man who 
wrote it. 



CHURCH WORK 



HARRY F. WARD 

A Year Book of the Church and Social 
Service in the United States 

Prepared for The Commission on the Church and 
Social Service, Federal Council of the Churches of 
Christ in America. i2mo, paper, net 30c.; cloth, 
net 50c. 

ERNEST EUGENE ELLIOTT 

The Problem of Lay Leadership 

A Companion to "Making Good In The L,ocal 
Church." i2mo, cloth, net 50c. 

"What Christian ideal should guide our men's work?" 
"What methods may we safely use in realizing it?" "What 
must we do?" "What must we undo?" These are some of 
the problems pressing insistently on the minds and hearts of 
ministers and religious leaders of the present day. This 
timely book of Mr. Elliott's suggests some eminently workable 
methods of awakening the interest of men, some lines of 
study by which it, is hoped, they may advance materially in 
the knowledge of the Kingdom of God. together with some 
"pointers" for such as may aspire to leadership. The pro- 
grams suggested are not theoretical. All have been tried, in 
whole or in part, in some local church with profit and success. 

HARLAN L. FEEMAN Prof, of Practical Theology West- 
minster Theological Seminary 

The Kingdom and the Farm 

The Problem of the Country Church. Cloth, net 75c. 

In compact form this timely book presents the problem of 
the country church and its attendant difficulty. Dr. Feeman 
was born on a farm, knows his subject well and writes with 
precision and authority. His suggestions have vision, breadth 
and sanity and offer a real scientific study of this vastly im- 
portant subject. 

D. C. TREMAINE 

Church Efficiency 

A Study of Methods. i6mo, cloth, net 50c. 

A plan of procedure whereby methods of business efficiency 
may be applied to the work of the church. Mr. Tremaine is 
a layman and what he here presents is the result of special 
and careful study. Most of his suggestions have already 
been adopted and none are submitted untried. The con- 
clusions are calculated to help lift the burdens of pastors, 
and in solving some of the problems of church life and ac- 
tivity. 



EARLIER WORKS IN DEMAND 

WAYNE WHIPPLE 

The Story-Life of the Son of Man 

8 vo, illustrated, net $2.50. 

"A literary mosaic, consisting of quotations from a great 
number of writers concerning all the events of the Gospels. 
The sub-title accurately describes its contents. That sub- 
title is 'Nearly a thousand stories from sacred and secular 
sources in a continuous and complete chronicle of the earth 
life of the Saviour.' The book was prepared for the general 
reader, but will be valuable to minister, teacher and student. 
There are many full-page engravings from historic paintings 
and sacred originals, some reproduced for the first time." — ■ 
Christian Observer. 

GAIUS GLENN ATKINS, P.P. 

Pilgrims of the Lonely Road 

i2tno, cloth, net $1.50. 

"A rare book for its style, its theme and the richness of 
its insight. Seldom is seen a book of more exquisite grace 
of diction — happy surprises of phrase, and lovely lengths of 
haunting prose to delight the eye. Each of the great pil- 
grim's studies is followed step by step along the lonely way 
of the soul in its quest of light, toward the common goal of 
all — union with the eternal." — Chicago Record-Herald. 

S. P. GORPON 

Quiet Talks on Following The Christ 

i2mo, cloth, net 75c. 

"This volume is well calculated to aid in Christian life, to 
give strength, courage and light on difficult problems. It 
grips one's very life, brings one face to face with God's 
word, ways of understanding it and, even its every day ap- 
plication. It is plain, clear, direct, no confusion of dark 
sentences." — Bapt. Observer. 

G. CAMPBELL MORGAN, P.P. 

The Teaching of Chri^l 

A Companion Volume to "The Crises of The 
Christ." 8vo, cloth, net $1.50. 

"One does not read far before he is amazed at the clear and 
logical grasp Dr. Morgan has upon divine truths. Could a 
copy of this book, with its marvelous insight, its straightfor- 
wardness, its masterly appeal, be placed in the hands of our 
church leaders, it would go far toward negativing the spir- 
itual barrenness of destructive criticism. Here is a work 
that may profitably occupy a prominent place in the minister's 
library." — Augsburg Teacher. 

ZEPHINE HUMPHREY 

The Edge Of the Woods And Other Papers 

i2mo, cloth, net $1.25. 

"Sane optimism, an appreciation of the beautiful and a 
delicate humor pervades the book which is one for lovers of 
real literature to enjoy." — Pittsburgh Post. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 160S6 
(724)779-2111 



